R.S.A.No. 3051 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3051 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.8. 2009 Balbir Singh ......Appellant Versus Commandant Border Security Force, Mamdot and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.K.Kakkar, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Balbir Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 10.3.2007. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 16.4.2008. Hence, the present appeal. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate R.S.A.No. 3051 of 2008 (O&M) 2 Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. The bone of contention in this case is land measuring 70 kanals 1 marla, fully detailed and described in the head note of the plaint. The said land is the ownership of Provincial Government and is stated to be in possession of the appellant/plaintiff. Khasra girdawari has also been corrected in his name by ACII, Ferozepur in the year 2002. His possession over the suit land is continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted and he had deposited Rs.8,756/- as Lagan/Rent in the Government treasury vide receipt dated 19.7.2004. According to the appellant/plaintiff, defendant No.1 has got no right or interest in the suit land, but he threatened to dispossess him from the suit land, hence, the appellant/plaintiff filed this suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from interfering in his possession over the suit land. 3. Upon notice, the respondents/defendants appeared and filed written statement wherein they denied possession of the appellant/plaintiff over the disputed land and have alleged that rather BSF has been in possession over 193.5 acres of land including the suit land since the year 1967 as lessee and they have paid lease money to the Provincial Government. Further R.S.A.No. 3051 of 2008 (O&M) 3 objections taken against the suit were that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit; the suit is bad for non joining of necessary parties and non service of notice under Section 80 CPC.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is in actual physical and legal possession of the suit land? OPP 3. If issue No.2 is proved, whether the defendants are interfering into the possession of the plaintiff? OPP 4. Whether Rapat dated 22.10.2000 made by the Assistant Collector Grade II vide which the khasra girdawari were corrected in the name of the plaintiff is legal and valid? OPP 5. Whether no cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether suit filed by the plaintiff is bad due to not impleading of necessary parties? OPD 7. Whether suit filed by the plaintiff is bad for non serving of the notice under Section 80 CPC ? OPD 8. Relief. ” R.S.A.No. 3051 of 2008 (O&M) 4 After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Admittedly, Provincial Government is the owner of the suit land. Plaintiff as well as defendants claim possession over the suit land. As per the revenue record i.e. copy of the jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 (shown during the course of arguments by learned counsel for the appellant), Border Security Force is reflected to be in possession of the suit land. A perusal of the khasra girdawari Ex.P-2 (shown during the course of arguments by learned counsel for the appellant) reveals that possession of the plaintiff is reflected on the basis of order dated 22.10.2000. However, the said order was not placed on record. Learned Additional District Judge in the impugned judgment has observed that the respondents had placed on record Rapat No.267 dated 4.3.2005 as per which, the entry in the khasra girdawari had been changed in the name of the plaintiff. Thus, the alleged correction was made during the pendency of the suit and the same could not be taken in consideration. The entry in the jamabandi regarding possession is in favour of the Border Security Force. The plaintiff, in these circumstances, was required to establish as to how he came in possession of the suit land and in what capacity. In the absence of the said evidence, the Courts below had rightly held that the plaintiff had failed to establish his possession over the suit property in dispute. The finding of the fact arrived at by the both the R.S.A.No. 3051 of 2008 (O&M) 5 Courts below in this regard calls for no interference by this Court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 27, 2009 anita