1 RSA No. 1560 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- R. S. A. No. 1560 of 2009 Date of decision: 21.4.2009 Balkar Singh and others … Appellants Versus Balwant Singh … Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the appellants. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This is defendants’ second appeal. Balwant Singh, plaintiff-respondent, filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from making any type of construction, change the nature of the suit land and alienating the same, on the averments that he was owner and the actual physical possession of the land bearing Khewat No. 1, Khatauni No. 132, Khasra Nos. 61//3(9-18), 7-min (5-0) situated at village Bir Bhamarsi, Tehsil and District Fatehagarh Sahib and it was so discernible from the entries in the jamabandi for the year 2001-01 as well. On 28.5.2002, the defendants along with other persons 2 RSA No. 1560 of 2009 forcibly took the possession of the suit land from the plaintiff and thus came in unauthorized possession of the same. The defendants contested the pleas of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit land; rather the same was owned by Langar Satguru Ram Singh Ji, Bhaini Sahib, and was in possession of the defendants as lessees of the Langar Satguru Ram Singh Ji as it was leased out to them by the Mohtmim of the Langar. Therefore, the defendants could not be termed as in unauthorized possession of the suit land. The trial court on the basis of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, viz. the entries in the jamabandi and Khasra Girdawri, found as a fact that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property, but the entries of possession in the Khasra Girdawri, Exhibit P-3, for the year 2002-03 were changed and instead the defendants were recorded to be in possession. The trial court further found that though the defendants claimed themselves to be in possession over the suit property as lessee of Langar Satguru Ram Singh Ji, but their possession over a part of the suit property was indicated to be that of tenants-at-will. On the basis of entries in the revenue record, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plea of the plaintiff that the defendants forcibly took possession of the suit land on 28.5.2002 stood amply proved on record. The trial court, accordingly, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 21.9.2007. 3 RSA No. 1560 of 2009 The first appellate court did not find any error of law or perversity in the findings of the trial court and consequently dismissed the defendants’ appeal vide judgment and decree dated 2.2.2009. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the record with his assistance. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that on the basis of the evidence on record, the findings as recorded by the courts below could not have been recorded and the same were wrong and illegal. The counsel further submitted that this Court should record an independent finding after re-appreciating the evidence. This contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted for the reason that re-appreciation of the evidence is not permissible in view of the impediment contained in the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In any case, the findings recorded by the courts below are based on correct appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence and also on the sound reasoning. No illegality or perversity could be shown by the counsel in the said concurrent findings so as to persuade this Court to interfere therewith in second appeal. No substantial question of law arises nor has any been pointed out by the counsel, for consideration of this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed in limine. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) April 21, 2009 JUDGE *RKMALIK* 4 RSA No. 1560 of 2009