R.S.A No. 3122 of 2009 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M Nos.9450-51 C of 2009 and R.S.A No. 3122 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : January 12, 2010 Kaur Singh, ...... Appellant (s) v. Kanshi Ram, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate for the appellant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) C.M No.9450-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded, C.M is allowed and delay of 591 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. C.M.No.9451-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded, C.M is allowed and delay of 47 days in filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A No.3122 of 2009 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for declaration that he R.S.A No. 3122 of 2009 (O&M) ::2:: was the owner of the land measuring 72 kanals and that the revenue entries made in favour of the appellant and the brother of the respondent were wrong and did not affect the rights of the respondent. The case of the appellant on the contrary was that admittedly the grand father of the parties one Balu Ram was a tenant over the land in dispute; that after the death of Balu Ram his two sons became tenants; and that after the death of the two sons, the appellant and the respondent inherited the tenancy rights. Both the Courts have, however, held that the appellant had not been able to prove that he had inherited the tenancy rights through his father. Consequently, the suit of the respondent was decreed. The following questions have been proposed :- “ i) Whether the appellant is owner in possession of the land in question to the extent of ½ share being the son of Hira s/o Balu Ram after the death of Hira and Balu Ram being the tenant ? ii) Whether the entry of the Khasra Girdawari pertaining to the year 1991 and thereafter are legal ? iii) Whether the suit is maintainable ? iv) Whether the findings of the court below are perverse and are liable to be set aside being illegal, arbitrary and not binding on the rights of the appellant ?” It would be seen that all the questions proposed are questions of fact. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be R.S.A No. 3122 of 2009 (O&M) ::3:: liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main petition has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 12, 2010. JUDGE `kk'