RSA No.2079 of 2010 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2079 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 26.04.2011 Phul Singh ……Appellant Versus Badam Singh and others …...Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. M.P. S. Mann, Advocate for the appellant. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiff- Phul Singh, having failed in both the Courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiff claimed to be in exclusive peaceful possession of suit land measuring 6 kanals 5 marlas of killa No.1/1/2 belonging to shamlat deh, being one of the proprietors in the village. The plaintiff sought injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the suit land and from dispossessing him therefrom. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 contested the suit and pleaded that they are also proprietors in the village and have rights in shamlat deh. The suit land is lying vacant for last many years and is not being cultivated by anybody. There is also passage going through the suit land, but the plaintiff wants to restrain the defendants from using the said passage for approaching their house existing in killa RSA No.2079 of 2010 (O & M) - 2 - No.2/3. Plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 12.06.2008 dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 15.12.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Copies of khasra girdwari placed on record depict that the suit land is lying vacant since the year 1997. The suit was filed on 16.07.2001. Thus for four years before the filing of the suit, the suit land was lying vacant. Consequently, it cannot be said that plaintiff was cultivating the suit land or was in possession thereof. On the contrary, the plaintiff admitted that there is a passage existing through the suit land since prior to the filing of the suit. This admission corroborates the defendants’ version that they are using the said passage existing in the suit land for approaching their houses. In khasra girdwari, possession of the plaintiff was not depicted to be exclusive, but was along with some other cosharers. However, since the suit land belongs to shamlat deh and has not been cultivated for many years before the filing of the suit, the plaintiff cannot be said to be in possession thereof. It may be added that admittedly defendants are also proprietors in the village. RSA No.2079 of 2010 (O & M) - 3 - In view of the aforesaid, the plaintiff has been rightly non- suited by the Courts below. He has failed to establish his exclusive possession over the suit land. Concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below against the plaintiff-appellant does suffer from any illegality or perversity in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant interference in second appeal. Entry in jamabandi for 1994-95 depicting possession of the plaintiff over the suit land does not help the plaintiff because thereafter the suit land remained vacant and is not in possession of anybody nor the plaintiff was recorded to be in exclusive possession of the suit land in subsequent khasra girdwari entry. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 26.04.2011. A.kaundal