IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4156 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: September 27, 2011. Mam Chand. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Daya and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 12.03.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 22.07.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal vide which suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. RSA No.4156 of 2009 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed suit for decree for permanent injunction restraining respondents-defendants from interfering in the possession of plaintiff over the land in dispute on the plea that respondent-defendant, Gram Panchayat is owner of the same and that earlier grandfather of plaintiff had been cultivating the same and after his death plaintiff came into the cultivating possession without paying any Batai to anyone. On notice being issued, suit was contested by respondents-defendants no.1 to 3 by taking the plea that they are in possession of the property in dispute and that earlier Fattu and Sadhu sons of Ramjas were cultivating the same. Sadhu died issueless. Latoor, father of respondents-defendants no.1 to 3 came in cultivating possession of land in dispute and since that day Latoor and after his death, they have been continuing in possession of the same. It is denied that either grandfather of present appellant-plaintiff or the present appellant- plaintiff ever remained in possession of the land in dispute. Learned trial Court after appreciating evidence adduced by both the parties came to the conclusion that present appellant-plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the land in dispute and that respondents-defendants have been able to prove their possession and hence, suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff was 2 RSA No.4156 of 2009 dismissed. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree by appellant- plaintiff was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff that as per latest revenue record appellant-plaintiff has been continuing in possession of the land in dispute and that any change in the entries in Khasra Girdawaris during pendency of the suit are to be ignored. He has also contended that respondents-defendants no.1 to 3 are having no right over the property in dispute and hence, they cannot be allowed to dispossess the appellant-plaintiff forcibly. However, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff. Both the courts after appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that appellant-plaintiff is not proved to be in possession of the property in dispute. Earlier in the revenue record respondents-defendants were shown in possession over the land in dispute. It has been observed by both the courts that nothing has come on the record as to how entries of possession were changed in favour of present appellant-plaintiff. Moreover, admittedly respondent-defendant no.4, Gram Panchayat is also party in the suit. Gram Panchayat is owner of the property in dispute and the injunction is being sought against the Gram Panchayat as well. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The 3 RSA No.4156 of 2009 said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 27, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 4