IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2664 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 23.7.2010 Dial Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus Sohan Singh ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) CM No.8055-C of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.2664 of 2010(O&M) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court below whereby appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been accepted and a decree has been passed in his favour and against the appellant restraining him from interfering in possession of the plaintiff- respondent in the suit land. As per the averments, the plaintiff-respondent being co-sharer in the suit land to the extent of 319/1914 share, out of the total land measuring 95 kanals 14 marlas, was in exclusive possession. Since the appellant was threatening to dispossess him forcibly, the present suit for permanent injunction was filed. Upon notice, the appellant had contested the suit by admitting that the land measuring 95 kanals 14 marlas was joint khata and the plaintiff-respondent was owner to the extent of 319/1914 share. However, it was denied that the suit land measuring 8 kanals was in possession of the plaintiff-respondent only. It was stated that in a family partition, land measuring 1 kanal 3 marlas out of Killa No.13 of Rectangle 24 measuring 8 kanals (suit land) fell in the share of the appellant and since then he was in actual physical possession of the said land i.e. 1 kanal 3 marlas. However, the khasra Girdawari of the above said killa number are wrongly entered in the name of the plaintiff-respondent and on the basis of the aforesaid wrong entries, the plaintiff-respondent was issuing threats to grab the aforesaid land measuring 1 kanal 3 marals. Dismissal of the suit was prayed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff- respondent partly to the extent that defendant-appellant was restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-respondent to the extent of 6 kanals 17 marlas in Khasra No.24/13 min Eastern side. On an appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent, the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 8.6.2009, accepted the appeal and decreed the suit and held that the plaintiff- respondent was entitled to restrain the defendant from interfering in the entire suit land measuring 8 kanals comprised in Khewat No.321, Khatauni N.524, Rect. No.24, Killa No.13(8-0). While accepting the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court observed as under:- “To decide this appeal it is appropriate to go through the revenue record. As per Jamabandi for the year 2002- 2003 (Ex.P-1), it is manifest that Sohan Singh plaintiff/appellant is in possession of suit land. Similarly, Khasra Girdawari for the year 2003-2006 (Ex.P-2) clearly shows that Sohan Singh plaintiff/appellant is in possession of suit land measuring about 8 kanals. In written statement, defendant in Para No.1 has admitted the fact that land measuring 95 kanals 14 marlas is joint Khata of plaintiff along with defendant and other co- sharers. It has categorically been admitted that the plaintiff is owner to the extent of 319/1914 share in this joint Khata. Even in cross-examination Dial Singh defendant while appearing as DW-1 admitted that fact that the suit land is 95 kanals 14 marlas in join t khata. It has further been admitted that plaintiff is also a co- sharer in joint Khata. However, it has been stated that a family partition has been effected amongst the co- sharers but there is nothing on record which could show that a family partition has in fact been got effected amongst the parties or not. Had it been so, then family partition would have been reflected in the revenue record which is not the case. Perusal of Ex.D1 further shows that an application for correction of Khasra girdawari is still pending before the court of revenue officer.” Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has approached this Court by way of instant appeal, Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court are perverse and the same are liable to be set aside as the entries in the revenue record which are in favour of the plaintiff-respondent has been rebutted by oral evidence produced by him on record. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decree. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is noticed only to be rejected. A specific stand has been taken by the appellant in his pleadings that the land measuring 1 kanal 13 marals which is alleged to be in his possession has fallen to his share on the basis of the family partition. However, the appellant has failed to prove his assertion by placing on record any evidence regarding family partition. In this view of the matter, I find no perversity in the findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. July 23, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE