Regular Second Appeal No. 960 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 960 of 2008 Date of decision : May 03, 2011 Jarnail Singh ....Appellant versus Kartar Singh ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. RK Singla, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. RS Chauhan, Advocate for LR of respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendant Jarnail Singh who was successful in the trial court but has been unsuccessful in the lower appellate court has filed the instant second appeal. Suit was filed by Kartar Singh plaintiff (since deceased) who was father of defendant-appellant Jarnail Singh. Now Kartar Singh is represented by his other son Gurdial Singh as legal representative. Plaintiff alleged that he is owner in possession of the suit land but the defendant threatened to interfere in his possession thereon and threatened to dispossess him therefrom. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed Regular Second Appeal No. 960 of 2008 -2- injunction against the said action of the defendant. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was playing in the hands of other son Gurdial Singh who wants to grab the property of father. The defendant also alleged that he had filed suit against Kartar Singh in which he challenged alienation of about 4 kanals land made by Kartar Singh (plaintiff herein) in favour of Kulwant Singh and 10 marlas land in favour of Kulbir Kaur. Total land is about 44 kanals which is Joint Hindu Family/coparcenary property. Plaintiff herein has sold 6 kanals land in favour of one Mohinder Singh. In compromise in that case, the plaintiff herein admitted possession of defendant herein over 12 kanals land. There was also another agreement regarding tubewell. Defendant claimed to be in cultivating possession of the suit land. It was pleaded that plaintiff is not in possession thereof. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phillaur vide judgment and decree dated 9.9.2006 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. However, first appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed by learned District Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 26.2.2008 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiff stands decreed restraining the defendant from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and from dispossessing him therefrom except in due course of law. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that Regular Second Appeal No. 960 of 2008 -3- the plaintiff himself as PW1 and his witness Santokh Singh PW2 admitted possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. However, learned counsel for the appellant failed to refer to any such admission of the plaintiff's witnesses. On the contrary, the plaintiff stated that he had divided his land in three lots i.e. one for himself and one lot each for his two sons i.e. defendant Jarnail Singh and other son Gurdial Singh for the purpose of cultivation and they are in possession thereof. The plaintiff accordingly stated that he is in possession of the suit land which was of his lot. Similar statement has been made by Santokh Singh PW2. Thus, there is no admission by plaintiff or his witness that defendant is in possession of the suit land. On the contrary, revenue record depicts possession of plaintiff over the suit land. Entry in jamabandi Ex. P1 carries presumption of correctness. The said presumption has not been rebutted by the defendant. Oral evidence of the defendant is not sufficient to rebut the aforesaid presumption or to depict that defendant is in possession of the suit land. Oral evidence of the defendant stands rebutted by oral evidence of the plaintiff. Documentary evidence reveals that plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. Consequently, his suit has been rightly decreed by lower appellate court. Finding of the lower appellate court that plaintiff was in possession of the suit land does not suffer from any illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference in second appeal. The said finding is not based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Regular Second Appeal No. 960 of 2008 -4- Before parting with the order, it has to be noticed that original plaintiff Kartar Singh has since died. It appears that there is dispute regarding his inheritance. Defendant herein had also filed suit alleging land in the hands of Kartar Singh to be coparcenary property. Any observation in the instant lis shall have no bearing on inheritance of property from Kartar Singh or on the nature of the land in the hands of Kartar Singh. Subject to observation in the preceding paragraph, I find no merit in the instant second appeal which is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) May 03, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'