IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2825 of 2008 Date of Decision : November 18, 2009 Amar Singh ....Appellant Versus Prem Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Advocate for respondent No.2. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendants- respondents for permanent injunction was decreed with costs by the trial Court. The first appeal filed by defendant/respondent No.2 was allowed by the learned lower appellate Court, judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff dismissed with costs. Aggrieved of the same, the plaintiff-appellant is before this Court by way of second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff-appellant filed suit for permanent injunction on the ground that he was in cultivating possession of land measuring R.S.A. No. 2825 of 2008 -2- 24 kanals as gair marusi tenant for the last 50 years on payment of 1/3rd batai. No order of ejectment or dispossession had been passed against him by any competent authority nor any such proceedings were pending in the Court. However, the defendants colluded with one another and were bent upon to take forcible possession of the suit land from him. The defendants actually came to the spot to dispossess him from the suit property but on account of timely intervention they failed in their attempt. In his written statement, Phulla Ram-defendant No.2, besides taking preliminary objection that the plaintiff had concealed true and material facts from the Court, averred that the property in dispute had been partitioned amongst the co-sharers and Sanad Taksim dated 27.5.2004 was prepared. Co-sharer Prem Singh applied for execution of Sanad Taksim and in partition khasra No. 544 was bifurcated and khasra No. 544/1, measuring 7 kanals 5 marlas was allotted to Prem Singh whereas Khasra No. 544/2 measuring 6 marlas was allotted to Malkiat, Baljit Singh and Rinku, khasra No 535/1 measuring 5 kanals 18 marlas and khasra No.536/2 measuring 1 kanal 6 marlas was allotted to Phulla Ram, khasra No. 535/2 measuring 2 kanals 2 marlas was allotted to Kashmir Singh, whereas khasra No. 536/3 measuring 2 marlas was kept as Makbuja Malkan. The plaintiff wanted to create obstruction in the execution proceedings and, thus, filed the suit. The parties, being co- sharers and co-owners, the suit was not maintainable and, therefore, the R.S.A. No. 2825 of 2008 -3- same was liable to be dismissed. The remaining defendants also opposed the suit. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the oral as well as documentary evidence, learned trial Court held that the plaintiff was in cultivating possession of the suit land for the last 50 years and, therefore, he was entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. Learned lower appellate Court, however, held that the plaintiff was not in cultivating possession of the suit land as a tenant and, therefore, not entitled to any injunction against the true owner. Reliance was also placed upon Jeet Singh Versus Sardara Singh, 2000 (3) RCR (Civil) 566 wherein it was held that even if the plaintiff had been shown to be gair marusi but there was no supporting evidence on the file as to how he got possession, he was not entitled to injunction against the true owner. The suit land was original owned by Parsa, father of the parties. After his death, the parties became owners of the suit property. The plaintiff has not denied that partition proceedings had been conducted and separate shares allotted to different co-sharers. As per Jamabandi for the year 2001-02, the plaintiff was recorded as a tenant through Smt. Lachmi Devi. However, there is no other supporting evidence to establish as to how he was in possession as gair marusi. In such a situation, he cannot claim the relief of injunction against the true owner. Moreover, he cannot make any capital out of the wrong entries R.S.A. No. 2825 of 2008 -4- made in the revenue record showing him as a gair marusi tenant. In fact, such a revenue entry has to be ignored, more so, when the rights of the parties had already been decided through partition proceedings and Sanad Taksim prepared. In view of the above, the learned lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court. While doing so, learned lower appellate Court correctly appreciated the evidence on record. The findings recorded by the learned appellate Court were neither perverse nor suffering from any illegality or infirmity. No substantial question of law, much less any law point, as formulated by the appellant, arises for determination. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) November 18, 2009 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO