IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.9604 of 2009 & RSA No.3153 of 2009 Decided on : 28.08.2009 Nawab Khan ... Appellant versus Smt. Jaituni & another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering in her possession over land measuring 5 kanals 18 marlas on the ground that in a partition between two, the said land had fallen to the share of the respondent. The whole case of the appellant is that in fact partition did take place but the appellant never handed over possession to the respondent. Thus, at best the respondent could have filed suit for possession but could not file suit for permanent injunction. The following questions have been proposed: i) Whether to get the relief of permanent injunction, respondent/plaintiff has to prove his possession over the suit property? RSA No.3153 of 2009 -2- ii)Whether the findings of the learned courts below are perverse in nature especially when the same has been returned without appreciating the documentary evidence placed on record by the appellant/defendant No.2? iii)Whether the judgments of both the courts below is not sustainable as both the courts below failed to give any cogent reasoning qua possession of respondent/plaintiff? It could be seen that proposed questions are essentially questions of fact. Learned counsel has led large stress on one finding of the learned Lower Appellate Court in the following words: “Moreover, in none of jamabandis after the year 1981, defendant's possession is mentioned as adverse rather defendants are shown to be in possession of half share of plaintiff as gair morusi tenants.” However, I find that the Lower Appellate Court, on a conspectus of the whole evidence, has correctly held that the parties were in possession as per the partition order Ex.P4 and the appellant had accepted that partition order. Consequently, I am not persuaded to hold that the findings of the Courts below are either based on no evidence or is based on such misreading of evidence so as to render them so perverse as to be liable to interference under Section 100 of CPC. Consequently, this appeal and application for stay are dismissed. August 28, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE