RSA No.4291 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4291 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: February 2, 2010. Dharambir ...Appellant(s) v. Thambu & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri S.S. Nara, Advocate, for Shri Raman Chawla, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction was decreed and the appellants were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-respondents over the suit property. In the civil suit, the plaintiff-respondents alleged that they were in cultivating possession of the suit property which was the joint property of the parties to the suit and as per the order dated 18.7.2005, the suit property was partitioned and the respondents were declared owners in possession of the portion which was in their possession. Mutation was also sanctioned in their favour in this regard. The order of partition had become final and the appellants had no concern with the property in dispute. However, on RSA No.4291 of 2009 -: 2 :- 2.4.2006, the defendant/appellants started interfering in possession over the suit property. The respondents requested the appellants not to do so but in vain. Hence, the suit. The appellants contested the suit by filing written statement, in which various preliminary objections were raised. On merits, it was submitted that the plaintiff-respondents were not in possession of the suit property and in fact the appellants were in possession of the same. It was further submitted that the order of partition has not become final between the parties and under the garb of this suit, the plaintiff-respondents wanted to take possession of the land belonging to the appellants. After considering the evidence on record and hearing, learned counsel for the parties, the courts below decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondents and recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff- respondents were in possession of the suit land on the basis of the partition order dated 18.7.2005 and the aforesaid order was acted upon. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the findings of the courts below are contrary to the evidence on record because as per rapat roznamcha dated 10.9.2005 which was prepared by the Area Patwari, the respondents were only put into possession of the suit land, however, the aforesaid document has been ignored and, therefore, the findings of the courts below are perverse and the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal:- “Whether the findings of the courts below are perverse?” I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The argument raised by him is without substance. RSA No.4291 of 2009 -: 3 :- While upholding the findings of the trial court, the lower appellate court has discussed the aforesaid document and has recorded a finding that the aforesaid document was not relied upon by the appellant in his pleadings and also that the aforesaid document was not proved on the record in accordance with law. The courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact and no fault can be found in the aforesaid findings. No question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 2, 2010. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge