R.S.A. No. 2708 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2708 of 2006 Date of decision : 27.1.2009 Ram Karan and others ....Appellants Versus Sunder Pal and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate for the appellants. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the first Appellate Court dated 3.2.2006 by which the findings recorded by the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 2.9.2002 were reversed. The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the appellants, who were arrayed as defendants therein, from interfering in their actual physical possession. It was pleaded that predecessor-in-interest of the respondents namely Banwari Lal alias Banarsi was in cultivating possession of the suit land as a Gair Marusi tenant from 1982 onwards. He died in the year 1995 and thereafter the respondents stepped into his shoes and continued to remain in cultivating R.S.A. No. 2708 of 2006 -2- possession thereof. The appellants contested the suit. It was pleaded by them that the land measuring 8 kanals 15 marlas being 43/108 share in the total land was purchased by Ram Kali, respondent No.2 vide registered sale deed dated 12.4.1996 for a sale consideration of Rs.1.00 lac. The land was sold by Babu Lal who was arrayed as one of the defendants and who was a co-sharer in the suit land. It was stipulated in the sale deed that the possession of the suit land had been delivered to the vendee. On the strength of this it was pleaded that plaintiffs/respondents were not in cultivating possession and in fact the appellants were in cultivating possession of the suit land after the execution of the sale deed. Broadly, on the aforesaid pleadings, the parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and cultivating the suit land as gair marusi?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are descendants of Banwari alias Banarsi Dass son of Sita Ram possessing and cultivating the suit land till the death since 1982?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are in cultivating and possessing suit land after the death of late Sh.Banarsi Dass alias Banwari Lal s/o Sita Ram?OPP 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit?OPD R.S.A. No. 2708 of 2006 -3- 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is false and frivolous?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs have no right to file the present suit?OPD 7. Whether the defendants have purchased the disputed land as alleged in the written statement?OPD 8. Relief. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs by holding that the possession was not proved and since the appellants were in cultivating possession on the strength of the sale deed, the relief of injunction was declined. In appeal, the findings of the learned trial Court were upset and it was categorically held that the possession of the plaintiffs/respondents as gair marusi tenant continued even after the death of original tenant who was predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The defendants/appellants are in regular second appeal assailing the findings of the learned first Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the finding of possession recorded by the first Appellate Court is perverse as it has failed to take into consideration the execution of the sale deed which had a stipulation regarding handing over of the possession to the appellants. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am afraid that the findings records by the first Appellate Court cannot be termed to be perverse so as to warrant any interference in the second appeal. The consistent revenue record in the shape of jamabandi for R.S.A. No. 2708 of 2006 -4- the year 1998-99, Ex.P-17 and prior thereto also records Banwari alias Banarsi, who was predecessor-in-interest of the plaiantiffs/respondents to be in cultivating possession of the suit land. There are also receipts Exs.P-4 to P-10 showing the payment of rent by Banwari Lal alias Banarsi @ Rs.400/- per annum. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the appellants were put in actual physical possession subsequent to the sale. Even the plea of the appellants that they had purchased the land from the co-sharer and the particulars of the land which they had purchased had not been detailed. In this view of the matter, the finding of fact recorded by the first Appellate Court holding the plaintiffs/respondents to be in possession of the suit land cannot be termed to be erroneous. No substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen in the present appeal. Consequently, the same being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 27.1.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss