IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 1946 of 2008 Date of decision: 1.4.2009 Bhawani Shankar … Appellant versus Singh Ram and others … Respondents CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: This is plaintiff's second appeal directed against the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed. Plaintiff in his suit pleaded that he is owner of suit land measuring 29 kanals 11 marlas situated in village Ahrod, Tehsil and Distt. Rewari, since the time of his forefathers and that he has been recorded as Gair Marusi in the column of jamabandi and Khasra Girdawaris. But the defendants are bent upon to dispossess him in collusion with the Halqa Patwari. Plaintiff alleged that Rapat Roznamcha No.61 dated 28.10.2000 entered in favour of defendants No.1 to 4 is illegal, null and void and not binding on his rights and thus, liable to be set aside. Upon notice of the suit, defendants No.1 to 4 filed joint written statement, inter alia, pleading therein that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land as alleged by him and that the entries in the revenue record are just a paper transaction. Further, the plaintiff had relinquished his right for a consideration of Rs.59,000/- for correction of revenue record and accordingly, made an entry in the Bahi. Besides, the Rapat Roznamcha was entered at the asking of the plaintiff himself in presence of Lambardar, namely, Shadi Ram. Defendants further stated that the plaintiff himself made a writing on 26.6.1989 for correction of record in their favour which was so R.S.A. No. 1946 of 2008 -2- corrected in their favour on 28.10.2000. The trial Court on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 1.6.2007. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the plaintiff preferred an appeal which also came to be dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 8.12.2007. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiff. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence adduced on record have concurrently found that the plaintiff did not mention as to how and when his tenancy came to be created. The Courts below have found that in the latest revenue entries the defendants are recorded to be in possession of the suit land and that the plaintiff has not claimed the relief of possession and thus, his simpliciter suit for injunction is not maintainable. The Courts below have relied upon a judgment of this Court in Puran and others v. Chandan,1975 PLJ 151, wherein it has been held that the entries made in the Rapat Roznamcha is a valuable piece of evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, it has been held that the plaintiff has miserably failed to disclose the source of irrigation and that PW-1 Bir Singh admitted the possession of the defendants. So much so, in an earlier suit, the Local Commissioner so appointed gave his report vide Ex.DW4/A to the effect that Bajra crop was standing on the land which belonged to the father of the defendants. Furthermore, DW-7 Shadi Lal, Lambardar of the village, categorically stated that Rapat No.61 was prepared at the instance of the plaintiff who had taken the consideration for correction of record of possession in favour of the defendants. That apart, DW-1 Jai Parkash, scribe of writing Ex.DW1/B and DW8 Daya Ram and DW-9 Surinder Singh have also categorically stated that the defendants are in possession of the suit land, coupled with the statement of DW-10 Shamsher Singh Malik, handwriting and finger print expert, who has deposed that signatures on the plaint, vakalatnama, application and affidavits do tally with the writing made in the Bahi and in this regard he has proved the report Ex.DW10/A. In this second appeal, counsel for the plaintiff-appellant could not point out anything so as to persuade this Court to take a view contrary to the one taken by the Courts below. The findings of the Courts being R.S.A. No. 1946 of 2008 -3- based upon correct appreciation of evidence call for no interference in this second appeal. No question of law much less substantial arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. April 1, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE