RSA No.2134 of 2008 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2134 of 2008 Date of Decision: 8.12.2008 Sube Singh ..Appellant. Vs. Banwari Lal ..Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The defendant is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction has been decreed. The case of the plaintiff is that he is in cultivating possession to the extent of ½ share in land measuring 38 Kanals 16 Marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Nangal, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari as per jamabandi for the year 1994-95 as Gair Marusi since 1965-66 and defendants no.1 to 5 who are residents of some other village, have no concern with the suit land but they wanted to dispossess him forcibly. Hence, plaintiff filed the present suit for permanent injunction. In the written statement, defendant alleged that plaintiff and his son Santosh had given the possession of the suit land to them voluntarily in the year 1996 and since then he is in cultivating possession and had invested Rs.5545/- in ploughing and sowing mustard crop. It is also alleged that defendants No.2 RSA No.2134 of 2008 -2 - to 5 have no concern with the suit land and have been falsely implicated. Defendants No.2 to 5 also filed separate written statement and refuted the allegations of the plaintiff. Defendant No.6 was arrayed as proforma defendant and later on, was given up on the statement of the counsel for the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendants in which the case set up in the plaint was reiterated and averments made in the written statement were denied. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court: (i)Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property as Gair Marusi as detailed in para No.1 of the plaint? OPP> (ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP. (iii)Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. (iv)Whether the plaintiff has concealed the real facts from the Court? OPD. (v)Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD. (vi)Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD. (vii)Relief. Both the parties led their respective evidence. On appraisal of the evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff while answering issues No.1 and 2 in his favour and issues No.3 to 6 against the defendants. The defendants came up in first appeal. The first Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal of the defendants and returned a firm finding of fact to the effect that it has been proved from oral as well as documentary evidence RSA No.2134 of 2008 -3 - on record that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property by virtue of jamabandis Ex.PW2/2 to Ex.PW2/8 for the period from 1969-70 to 1999- 2000 and Khasra Girdawaris for the year 2002-05 Ex.P1 and Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/9 from Kharif 22.3.2000 to 30.3.2005. It was also found that the defendant is not in possession of the suit property and had rather came up with a new plea of mortgage which could not be substantiated by him by leading any cogent evidence. After taking into account the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the first Appellate Court recorded a firm finding of fact that the plaintiff is in possession and defendant has no right to interfere in his possession. Sh.Vikram Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has totally failed to assail the firm finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below in favour of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is in actual physical possession of the suit land nor could raise any question of law much less substantial for the purpose of adjudication by this Court in terms of the provisions of Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with a costs of Rs.5000/-. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 8.12.2008 Judge Meenu