R. S. A. No. 3352 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 3352 of 2008 Date of Decision : February 08, 2010 Karnail Singh and others .... Appellants Vs. Labh Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. S. S. Sodhi, Advocate for Mr. R. S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendants are in second appeal before this Court having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. Labh Singh-respondent filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in plaintiff's possession over the suit land measuring 19 marlas bearing khasra no.270//2/1, being owner to the extent of half share thereof, but being in exclusive possession of 19 marlas land in suit. Defendants pleaded that they have purchased 4 kanals 16 marlas land out of land of khasra no.270//2 vide separate sale deeds from the plaintiff and his brother and accordingly, the defendants are in R. S. A. No. 3352 of 2008 2 possession thereof at the spot. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff and his brother have also filed another suit for possession of 6 marlas land of khasra no.270//2/1. The said khasra no. has been entered at two places in the revenue record and the plaintiff wants to take benefit thereof. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sunam, vide judgment and decree dated 30.08.2007, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over 19 marlas land in suit comprised of khasra no.270//2/1 forcibly and illegally and from dispossessing the plaintiff therefrom forcibly and illegally, except in due course of law, holding that the plaintiff is proved to be in exclusive possession of the suit land as co-owner. First appeal preferred by the defendants has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide judgment and decree dated 21.05.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred by the defendants. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the plaintiff- respondent has since sold the suit land. However, this contention would not entitle the defendants to succeed in the instant second appeal because the decreed passed by the lower courts would enure for the benefit of plaintiff's vendee. Learned counsel for the appellants next vehemently contended that khasra no.270//2/1 has been entered at two places in the revenue record i.e. khewat and khatauni no.165/300 with 19 marlas as area and khewat and khatauni no.165/312 with 6 marlas as area and the plaintiff is taking advantage thereof. The contention is devoid of substance because total area of khasra no.270//2/1 is 1 kanal 5 marlas, as also reflected in jamabandi for the year 1980-81 (Ex.D-5) produced by the defendants themselves. In subsequent jamabandis, this khasra no. appears to have been split up in two R. S. A. No. 3352 of 2008 3 parts without splitting the number itself. One part of this khasra no. is having area of 19 marlas and the other part is having area of 6 marlas. The plaintiff and his brother have filed the other suit for possession of 6 marlas land of this khasra no. The instant suit pertains to the remaining 19 marlas land of the same khasra no. The plaintiff is proved to be in exclusive possession of 19 marlas suit land of this khasra no., as per revenue record (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3). The said revenue entries have not been rebutted by defendants by leading any cogent evidence. Presumption of correctness arises from entry in jamabandi. The said presumption has not been rebutted. Consequently, the plaintiff was proved to be in exclusive possession of the suit land. There is concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below to this effect, based on appreciation of evidence. The said finding cannot be said to be perverse or illegal in any manner. No substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no merit in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. February 08, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE