RSA No.310 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.310 of 2009 Date of Decision: 10.11.2009 Gopi Ram and others .....Appellants Vs. Chiman Lal and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J CM No.734-C of 2009 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 145 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of accordingly. CM No.735-C of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. RSA No.310 of 2009 The appellants challenge judgements and decrees dated 10.1.2006 and 4.12.2007, passed by the Civil Judge, Rewari and the Additional District Judge, Rewari, decreeing the suit filed by plaintiff- respondent no.1 and dismissing his appeal respectively. The plaintiff-respondent no.1 filed a suit for possession of the RSA No.310 of 2009 2 suit land by way of demolition of the construction raised thereon by pleading that he alongwith defendants no.4 and 5 and 6 to 14 are owners in possession of the suit land. However, seven months before the filing of the suit when respondent no.1 was away from the village, the appellants took illegal possession of the suit land and raised a “Chappar” after raising a pucca wall. Despite his request to the appellants to hand over vacant possession, they did not do so, hence the suit. In response, the appellants denied that the respondents are owners of the suit land by pleading that they had taken possession of the suit land in 1966, as Ladia @ Ladhu Ram, father of the respondents sold the suit land being Khasra No.229 to the appellants by way of an oral sale for Rs.99/-. A document titled as a 'Yadast-Parcha' was executed by the father of the respondents. It was further pleaded that the adjoining Khasra Nos. i.e. 224 to 228 are owned and possessed by the appellants. After purchase of the suit land, the appellants raised katcha houses, which collapsed in a flood, destroying the documents. When the flood waters receded, the appellants raised two `pucca chappars' and two `katcha chappars' without any objection from the respondents. It is, therefore, prayed that the suit be dismissed. On the basis of the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court decreed the suit by holding that Ex.PW-4/A, the jamabandi for the year 1990-91 records Ladia @ Ladhu Ram as owner in possession of the disputed land bearing Khasra No.229 (0- 5), Ex.PW-4/B Mutation No.1467 records that the respondents have inherited the suit land after the demise of Ladhu Ram. Ex.P-1 the demarcation report establishes that the appellants have taken possession of RSA No.310 of 2009 3 the disputed land and raised a `chappar'. It was further held that the appellants have failed to prove the alleged oral sale. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgement and decree, the appellants filed an appeal. Vide judgement and decree dated 4.12.2007, the learned Additional District Judge, Rewari, dismissed the suit. Before proceeding to address arguments on merits, counsel for the appellants states that there is a bonafide error of fact in the grounds of appeal, as it has been inadvertently averred that no replication was filed to controvert the averments in the written statement. It is prayed that this bonafide error may be deleted. In view of the request made by counsel for the appellants, the averments in the grounds that relate to the non filing of a replication are deemed to have been deleted from the grounds of revision. Counsel for the appellants submits that the findings recorded by the courts below are illegal and void. It is argued that the respondents have not examined any independent witness in support of their pleaded case that the appellants took forcible possession, seven months prior to the filing of the suit. It is argued that the appellants are owners in possession of the suit land since the year 1966. They have led clear and cogent evidence to establish the oral sale by the father of the respondents. The findings that the appellants are unauthorised occupants are, therefore, perverse and arbitrary. It is further submitted that in the absence of any proper description of Khasra No.229 in the plaint, the courts below should not have placed reliance on the revenue entries. It is submitted that as the impugned judgements and decrees are illegal and void, the appeal be accepted and the judgements and decrees passed by the courts below be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the RSA No.310 of 2009 4 judgements and find no reasons to hold that the findings recorded by the courts below are in any manner arbitrary, disclose a perverse process of reasoning as to invite inference in second appeal. Ladhu Ram, father of the respondents is admittedly recorded as owner in possession of the suit land in the jamabandi for the year 1990-91. After the demise of Ladhu Ram, Mutation No.1647 came to be sanctioned in favour of the respondents. The demarcation report Ex.P-1 establishes that the appellants are in unauthorised occupation of the suit land, as they have constructed a `chappar. The appellants' plea that they have become owners by way of an oral sale executed by Ladhu Ram remains unsubstantiated by reference to any evidence, much-less any revenue entry. The plea that the document executed with respect to the oral sale was lost in a flood, appears to be an after thought. The courts below rightly held that the appellants are unauthorised occupants of the suit land, owned by the respondents. I find no reason, whether in fact or in law to hold that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are in any manner illegal or void. As no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 10.11.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE