RSA No.1900 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1900 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 10, 2011 Jagir Singh .....Appellant v. Sawnu and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 1.3.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, accepting appeal filed by respondent-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 9.12.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, dismissing suit filed by respondent-plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, case of respondent-plaintiff is that during consolidation of holdings, land measuring 8 marlas, i.e., khasra no.95 was allotted to his father as baras and hence, he came in possession of the same as owner. Respondent-plaintiff was a landless labourer, hence a Gadha Khad (manure pit) measuring 2 marlas was also allotted to him during consolidation of holdings. Later on, father of respondent-plaintiff sold Khasra no.95. However, in the garb of the same, entry regarding 2 marlas RSA No.1900 of 2011(O&M) -2- of land, which was allotted as manure pit to the respondent-plaintiff, was also wrongly changed in favour of appellants-defendants by the revenue authorities. Plea has also been taken that possessory rights were given to allottees under the East Punjab Land (Prevention of Fragmentation & Consolidation of Holdings) Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act') and later on the ownership rights were conferred upon them and hence earlier father of respondent-plaintiff and thereafter he became owner in possession of the said manure pit measuring 2 marlas. Suit was contested by present appellant-defendant by taking the plea that revenue entries have been correctly recorded in favour of appellant-defendants. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by respondent- plaintiff, however, learned first appellate Court reversed the said finding and decreed the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- defendant that neither respondent-plaintiff nor his father ever remained in possession of the land in dispute as owner and rather the land was purchased by appellant-defendant from previous owner and hence, he has been continuing in possession of the same as owner. Learned first appellate Court has given sufficient reasons for reversing the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. Non- proprietors including father of respondent-plaintiff was allotted baras and manure pits of 2 marlas each as per list Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 respectively. This fact has also been admitted by present appellant-defendant. The land was earlier owned by Rattan Amol Singh as is clear from the copies of jamabandies. Father of respondent-plaintiff has been shown in possession of RSA No.1900 of 2011(O&M) -3- the same. However, later on, after amendment of the Act regarding land reserved for extension of village abadi or given as manure pits under the scheme of consolidation, ownership rights were conferred upon the allottees and hence, father of respondent-plaintiff became owner of the same. The present suit has been filed only to get the revenue entries corrected. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned first appellate Court in passing the impugned judgment and decree. Finding recorded by the lower appellate court is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 10.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge