R.S.A No. 4354 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 4354 of 2008 Decided On : 05.10.2009 Daljit Singh and ors. ...Appellants versus Manjeet Singh and ors. ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby their suit for permanent injunction in respect of land measuring 163 kanals 17 marlas was dismissed. Budh Singh, predecessor- in-interest of the parties was allotted land measuring 16 acres 12- ¼ units in village Tibbi Araian in lieu of land left by him in District Hazara in Pakistan. Possession of land measuring 81 kanals 12 marlas and land measuring 163 kanals 17 marlas was given to Budh singh but it was found subsequently that Budh Singh has been allotted excess land to the extent of 9 acres and 8 units. Such excess area of allotment was cancelled but as per R.S.A No. 4354 of 2008 -2- the plaintiff-appellant, the issue regarding allotment of the said land is under consideration of the competent authority. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of the suit property in pursuance of arrangement arrived at on 16.05.1988 (Exhibit P-1) and thus, sought injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the land which has fallen in excess share. Both the Courts have declined ad-interim injunction on the ground that agreement Exhibit P-1 is not a valid document and is not binding upon defendants No.1 and 2 as they were parties to the said document. Still further it has been found that agreement Exhibit P-1 has not been given effect to the revenue record as in the Jamabandies and Khasra Girdawaries, the change in possession has not been reflected. Consequently, both the Courts have dismissed the suit. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that since the Central Government is the owner of suit land, therefore, the revenue entries were not updated in terms of agreement dated 16.05.1988 but the said fact is not sufficient to discard the aforesaid agreement from consideration and to permit the appellants to protect their possession over the suit property. I do not find any merit in the said argument. Defendants No.1 and 2 are not signatory to the said agreement. In the absence of said defendant being party to the document relied upon by the plaintiffs, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs R.S.A No. 4354 of 2008 -3- are in exclusive possession over the land in dispute. The consent of defendants NO.3 and 4 is not binding as against other co- sharers and when there is no evidence that there was any change in possession in terms of agreement arrived at between the parties on 16.05.1988. In the absence of any evidence to the effect that agreement Exhibit P-1 was acted upon, the parties will continue to be in possession as successors of Budh Singh, thus, both the Courts have rightly dismissed the suit for injunction. In view of the said fact, I do not find that there is any patent illegality or irregularity in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration of this court in second appeal. Dismissed. OCTOBER 05, 2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) shalini JUDGE