RSA No. 2285 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2285 of 2008 Date of Decision: 25.08.2009 Resham Singh s/o Bishan Singh r/o village Dhirpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. ... Appellant Versus 1. Parkash s/o Basanta, r/o village Dhirpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. 2. Mehanta s/o Basanta, r/o village Dhirpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. 3. Puran son of Basanta, r/o village Dhirpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. 4. Arjan son of Chanan,r/o village Dhirpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. 5. Mohna son of Chanan, r/o village Dhirpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. 6. Smt. Chanan Kaur, daughter of Pritam Singh, r/o village Dhirpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. 7. Sardar son of Jagal Singh @ Ujagar Singh, r/o village Dhirpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. 8. Sibu son of Jawahar, r/o village Dhirpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. 9. Tikka Charanjit Singh son of Guru Amarjit Singh, r/o VPO Kartapur, District Jalandhar, 11, BDPO East Block, Jalandhar. 10. Tikka Karamjit Singh son of Guru Amarjit Singh, r/o VPO Kartapur, District Jalandhar, 11, BDPO East Block, Jalandhar. ...Respondents RSA No. 2285 of 2008 2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. A.S. Gill, Advocate, for the appellant. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 10.11.06, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, vide which, it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant, and the judgement and decree dated 07.02.08, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Jalandhar, vide which, it also dismissed the appeal. 2. The plaintiff/appellant, claimed that he has been gair marusi, in cultivating possession of the land, in dispute, under defendants/respondents No. 9 and 10 and other (Previously under Sh. Guru Amarjit Singh) since long. The BD&PO Jalandhar (East), issued a letter, to the plaintiff/appellant, that the land, bearing khasra no. 21/1, be vacated, as the same had been earmarked for Harijan Colony. The plaintiff/appellant, after perusing the revenue record, came to know that the land, in dispute, had been transferred in the names of defendants No. 1 to 8, vide mutation No. 1277, and they were shown to be in possession. The said mutation was totally wrong and illegal, being an exparte order, passed at the back of the plaintiff/appellant and defendants No. 9 and 10 and others, as the RSA No. 2285 of 2008 3 plaintiff/appellant, was in possession of the land, much before 1982. It was stated that defendants No. 1 to 8, had got no concern with the property, in dispute, as the same originally belonged to defendants No. 9 and 10. After the issuance of notice by the Block Development Panchayat Officer, defendants No. 1 to 8, started proclaiming that they had been the owners, in possession of the property, in dispute, since May, 2000, and threatened to take forcible possession thereof, but their nefarious designs were foiled, with the intervention of the respectables. The defendants, were many a time asked, not to interfere into the possession of the plaintiff forcibly, but to no avail. On their final refusal, to desist from their nefarious designs, left with no other alternative, a suit for declaration, was filed. 3. The defendants, were duly served, but none of them appeared, in the Court, as a result whereof, they were proceeded against exparte. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 5. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the plaintiff/appellant, which was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Jalandhar, vide judgement and decree dated 07.02.08. 6. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant. 7. I have heard the Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, and RSA No. 2285 of 2008 4 have gone through and perused the documents, on record, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Courts below, were wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that defendants No. 1 to 8/respondents, were in cultivating possession of the land, in dispute. He further submitted that the mutation sanctioned, in that regard, as also the entries, in the Jamabandi, for the year 1994-95, were illegal. He further submitted that the appellant, was in possession of the land, in dispute, as gair marusi, under defendants No. 9 and 10. He further submitted that the Courts below, recorded perverse findings, on account of misreading and misappreciation of evidence, that the defendants, were in possession of the land, in dispute. He further submitted that the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 9. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, in my considered opinion, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at by the trial Court, and the first Appellate Court, even if the same are grossly erroneous as the legislative intention was very clear that the RSA No. 2285 of 2008 5 legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the judgements of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. P1 jamabandi, for the year 1994-95, clearly reveals, that the defendant Nos. 1 to 8, were shown, to be cultivating possession of the land, in dispute. The Courts below, were right, in holding that, since the entries, contained in the jamabandi, carry a presumption of truth, in the absence of any evidence, produced by the plaintiff, to the contrary, the same were reliable. The Courts below, were also right, in holding that, the plaintiff, was unable to establish, as to how, the entries, contained in the jamabandi P1, showing the defendants, to be in cultivating possession, were wrong. The Courts below, were also right, in holding that, in the absence of production of the latest revenue record, by the plaintiff, showing him to be gair marusi, in cultivating possession of the land, in dispute, he was not entitled to the injunction prayed for. The concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below, on the aforesaid points, being based, on the correct reading and due appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer, from any illegality or perversity, and, therefore, warrant no interference. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, thus, being without merit, must fail,and the same stands rejected. The judgements and decrees of the Courts below, are liable to be upheld. 10. No question of law, much less substantial, has arisen, in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. RSA No. 2285 of 2008 6 11. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. 25.08.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE