IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1618 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.3.2010 Harbhajan Singh ....Appellant Versus Raghbir Singh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.4844-C of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. C.M.No.4845-C of 2009 in/and R.S.A.No.1618 of 2009 The instant Regular Second Appeal is directed by the defendant against the judgments of the trial Court dated 28.9.2006 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 26.11.2008. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit pleading that he was owner to the extent of 1/16 share in the suit land comprised in khewat No.1018 khatauni No.1441 and that this land originally belonged to one Kapoor Singh who gave it to him by way of a consent decree passed in Civil Suit No.1152 of 1994 titled as Raghbir Singh v. Kapoor Singh and accordingly the mutation was sanctioned. R.S.A.No.1618 of 2009 (O&M) -2- He pleaded that after becoming the owner to the extent of 1/16 share in the suit land he had sold some share in favour of Suresh Kumar etc. and retained the possession of 9 biswas 12 biswansi with him which was shown with red colour in the site plan and depicted by letters ABCDEFGHI. He further pleaded that he had dug out the foundation on the eastern and northern side of the suit land and had also dug out the foundation on the western and southern directions and that the appellant was trying to interfere in his possession. The appellant, who contested the suit, admitted that Kapoor Singh was the owner in possession to the extent of 1/16 share but denied the ownership and possession of the plaintiff/respondent. It was pleaded that the decree suffered by Kapoor Singh does not create any ownership in favour the plaintiff-respondent. On the pleadings of the parties and after appraisal of evidence the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. In appeal, the findings were affirmed. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and liable to be set aside. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be termed to be erroneous as they are based on the revenue entries which depicted the ownership of the plaintiff-respondent. The appellant was not found to be in possession of the suit land. The revenue record depicted ownership of Kapor Singh to the extent of 1/16 share and that he had R.S.A.No.1618 of 2009 (O&M) -3- suffered a decree in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. Revenue entries Ex.P-4 coupled with the statement of the witness of the plaintiff-respondent show that he was in possession of the suit property. Since he was in possession of the specific portion, he was entitled to protect his possession. These in any eventuality are findings of fact which cannot be interfered with in Regular Second Appeal when no substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court. The appeal is dismissed. Consequently, stay application is also dismissed. 19.3.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss