R.S.A. No. 3335 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3335 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 27.1.2009 Shahri & others .......... Appellants Versus Bhup Singh & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate for the appellants. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 18.9.2007 and 25.9.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents seeking permanent injunction has been ordered to be decreed. The plaintiffs brought a suit for permanent injunction on the plea that their father was a tenant over the property in dispute and after his death on 12.2.1980 the plaintiffs succeeded to the tenancy. The suit was contested on the plea that the plaintiff-respondents were not in possession of the property in dispute, as the father of the plaintiffs-respondent had surrendered possession in favour of the appellants-defendant. The learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that no document produced or proved on record, showing the R.S.A. No. 3335 of 2008 (O&M) -2- surrender of possession. The entries in the khasra-girdawari has been rejected by the learned Courts below as these came in existence after filing of the suit and, therefore, could not be relied upon. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration by this Court in this appeal :- 1. Whether in view of revenue entries the suit for injunction could be decreed ? 2. Whether the judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below are outcome of misreading of evidence ? However, on consideration of the matter I find that no questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal as it is well settled law that in absence of proof of surrender of possession plea of the defendant-respondents that father of the plaintiffs had surrendered possession can not be believed. Once it was admitted position that father of the plaintiffs- respondent was statutory tenant under the defendant-appellants, their tenancy stood proved by way of inheritance. In absence of proof of surrender or any order of eviction, plaintiffs were entitled to injunction. The findings recorded by the learned Courts below, therefore, is in consonance with the well settled law. No substantial question of law, as framed, arise for consideration by this Court. No merit. Dismissed. 27.1.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE