R.S.A.No. 2902 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2902 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.3.2011 Bahadur Singh ......Appellant Versus Diala Ram and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.K.Aneja, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the suit land was earlier in possession of his father Puran Ram, who was cultivating the said land as a tenant. Later on the suit land was declared surplus in the hands of the land owner and it was allotted to Puran Ram. Puran Ram deposited some of the instalments during his life time and the remaining instalments were deposited by the plaintiff. Proprietary rights were transferred in the name of Puran Ram. Mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of legal R.S.A.No. 2902 of 2010 (O&M) 2 representatives of Puran Ram including the plaintiff after his death. The defendants had no concern with the suit property but were threatening to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1, in his written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that Puran Ram was not the father of the plaintiff. Some other Puran Ram had been allotted the suit land. It was averred that the instalments had been deposited by Tulsi @ Santosh on behalf of her son Jaswant Ram. Puran Ram had died unmarried and rather Jaswant Ram was residing with him after his adoption. It was denied that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. Defendant No.2, in his written statement, pleaded ignorance qua the fact that Puran Ram was not in possession of the suit land or that it had been allotted to him after it was declared surplus in the hands of the original land owner. Defendant No.2 further pleaded ignorance qua the fact that Puran Ram along with his sons was cultivating the suit property. It was averred that defendant No.2 was a minor and could not be expected to cause any interference in the possession of the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession over suit property as described in the head note of the plaint? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 3. Relief.” R.S.A.No. 2902 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Additional Civil Judge (Sr.divn.) vide judgment and decree dated 29.9.2008 decreed the suit of the plaintiff and the defendants were restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the land measuring 42 kanals 4 marlas described in the head note of the plaint and from dispossessing the plaintiff from the said land except in due course of law. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant No.1 preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 26.2.2010. Hence, the present appeal by defendant No.1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to successfully challenge the said finding of fact. As per the revenue record, proved on record by the plaintiff, he was described to be owner in possession of the suit property. The documents relied upon by the defendants related to the change of entries in the khasra girdawari during the pendency of the suit. The said entries could not be taken in consideration by the Court as the entries had been changed during the pendency of the suit to the effect that the appellant was in possession of the suit land as a tenant. Rather the entries in the revenue record Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 depicted that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land. No substantial question of law arises in this regular R.S.A.No. 2902 of 2010 (O&M) 4 second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 30, 2011 anita