R.S.A.No. 3023 of 2007 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3023 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.1.2011 Bishamber and others ......Appellants Versus Shankar through L.Rs .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Chetan Mittal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate for respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction that the defendants be restrained from dis-possessing the plaintiff from the suit land. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that Tek Chand was the owner in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff had taken the suit land on lease for 99 years from Tek Chand. The lease deed was executed on 3.1.1996. It was duly got registered before the Sub Registrar and ` 25,000/- were paid as chakota for five years by the plaintiff to Tek Chand. Since then, plaintiff was in peaceful cultivating possession of the suit property. Defendants, however, were R.S.A.No. 3023 of 2007 (O&M) 2 interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Defendants, in their written statement, denied the execution of the lease deed in favour of the plaintiff. It was averred hat the said lease deed was a sham transaction. Tek Chand and father of defendant No.1 had executed a mortgage deed qua 42 kanals 18 marlas of land in favour of Amar Singh and the same was registered on 21.9.1988. The defendants had further mortgaged the same with Jagdish Chand vide lease deed dated 24.4.1992. Possession of the suit land was delivered to Jagdish Chander. Tek Chand had, thus, no right to execute lease deed in favour of the plaintiff. Tek Chand had been restrained from alienating any part of the suit property vide order dated 26.10.1990 passed by the Civil Judge in civil suit titled Bishambhar and others vs. Tek Chand and others. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is lessee in possession for 99 years in respect of the agricultural land comprising Khewat No.58-59 Khata No.79 situated in revenue estate of village Harphala Tehsil Ballabgarh District Faridabad? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree as prayed for OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD R.S.A.No. 3023 of 2007 (O&M) 3 4.Whether the plaintiff has concealed material facts and also is estopped from filing the suit due to his own act and conduct ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 6. Whether the defendants are entitled for compensation costs / u/s 35-A CPC ? OPD 7. Whether the lease deed in favour of the plaintiff is bogus documents and is a sham transaction? OPD 8. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 31.5.2004, trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and restrained the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff till the suit property was partitioned by metes and bounds. Appeal filed by the defendants against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 23.3.2006. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The plaintiff has based his claim on lease deed executed by Tek Chand in his favour on 3.1.1996. The defendants based reliance on receipts issued by Irrigation Department to substantiate their possession over the suit property. However, as per the revenue record, plaintiff was described to be in possession of the suit R.S.A.No. 3023 of 2007 (O&M) 4 property. The Courts below rightly held that plaintiff Shankar was in possession of the suit land on the basis of the entries in the revenue record. The defendants had failed to rebut the entries in the revenue record. Bishambar and others had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against Tek Chand and others. Consent decree suffered by Het Lal in favour of Tek Chand dated 3.2.1989 was challenged. The said suit filed by Bishambar and others was dismissed by the trial Court but in appeal the decree of joint possession was passed in favour of Bishambar and others to the extent of 4/6th share in the suit property. It was held that the remaining 2/6th share will go to Tek Chand and Jai Ram. RSA No. No.3420 of 1999 filed against the said judgment and decree by Tek Chand was dismissed as withdrawn as the parties had mutually settled the matter. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the defendants could not disturb the possession of the plaintiff until they seek partition. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 25, 2011 anita