RSA No.1198 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1198 of 2010 Date of decision : 01.12.2010 Sunder Lal .... Appellant Versus Smt. Shanti Devi & Others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present : Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate for Mr. S. K. Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. **** L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) This is second appeal by plaintiff-Sunder Lal who has lost in both the courts below. Plaintiff-appellant alleged that he and proforma defendants No.10 to 12 (proforma respondents No.19 to 21 herein) are owners in possession of the suit property measuring 1 Biswa 16 Biswansis bearing Ahata No.154 Ghar No.305. Predecessors of defendants No.1 to 9 (respondents No.1 to 18 herein, including legal representatives of some of the deceased defendants) give the suit property to ancestors of plaintiff and proforma defendants and since then, they have been owners in possession thereof for more than 60 years. Their ownership and possession has also been reflected in record of consolidation of holdings. However, defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiff and proforma defendants from the suit property. Accordingly, plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 9 from interfering in RSA No.1198 of 2010 -2- possession of plaintiff and proforma defendants over the suit property and from raising construction therein and from alienating the same. In the alternative, decree for mandatory injunction was also claimed, if defendant Nos.1 to 9 succeed in raising construction or in ousting plaintiff and proforma defendants from the suit property. Defendants No.1 to 9 controverted the plaint allegation. It was pleaded that they are owners in possession of the suit property. Their ancestors never gave the suit property to ancestors of plaintiff and proforma defendants. The suit property also does not stand in the name of plaintiff and proforma defendants in record of Consolidation of Holdings, wherein also ancestors of defendants No.1 to 9 are reflected to be owners of the suit property. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 28.09.2006 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 27.08.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in the revenue record produced in evidence, plaintiff and proforma defendants are recorded to be in possession of the suit property, whereas contesting defendants or their predecessors have been recorded to be owners thereof and, therefore, plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein. The plaintiff alleged that the suit property was given by RSA No.1198 of 2010 -3- ancestors of contenting defendants to ancestors of plaintiff and proforma defendants. However, admittedly there is no document to support the said contention. On the other hand, transfer of ownership could be effected only by registered gift deed, but admittedly there is no registered gift deed. Even in revenue record, plaintiff and proforma defendants or their predecessors have not been recorded to be owner of the suit property. On the contrary, predecessors of contesting defendants have been recorded to be owners of the suit property in the revenue record. Consequently there is not even shred of evidence to depict that plaintiff and proforma defendants are owners of the suit land or their predecessors were owner thereof. As regards possession, plaintiff and proforma defendants are also not proved to be in possession of suit property. In the revenue record, it has simply been reflected that their predecessors had kept Guwara (pile of dung cakes) in the suit land with permission of the owners. This entry in the revenue record is not sufficient to hold that plaintiff and proforma defendants are in possession of the suit property or their predecessors were in possession thereof. Placing of Guwara in the suit land with permission of the owners would not amount to possession of plaintiff and proforma defendants or their predecessors nor it would amount to dispossession of contesting defendants or their predecessors. It was also admitted by the plaintiff himself that even house tax of the suit property is being paid by the contesting defendants and their names exist in the Municipal record also. The only evidence led by the plaintiff is that the plaintiff and proforma defendants have been using the suit land as Gatwar i.e. for placing dung cakes etc. RSA No.1198 of 2010 -4- However, even if it be so assumed for the sake of argument, this act would not establish the possession of plaintiff and proforma defendants over the suit land, particularly so because the same was also allegedly done with permission of the owners i.e. contesting defendants or their predecessors. For the reasons aforesaid, I have no hesitation in concluding that plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that he and proforma defendants are either owners or in possession of the suit land. Concurrent finding of the courts below to this effect is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons and does not suffer from infirmity. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 01.12.2010 'raj'