1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3873 of 2008 (O&M). Date of Decision: 5.3.2009 *** Krishan @ Ramesh .. Appellant VS. Vikram Singh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Heard. Delay of 27 days in re-filing the appeal stands condoned. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 has been decreed by the learned Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate court after recording finding that he is in possession of the suit land and the defendant-appellant and others are restrained from dispossessing him from the suit land, except in due course of law and without getting it partitioned. As a consequence, the defendant-appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, “the Code”). There is no dispute to the fact that the plaintiff is one of the co- sharers in the suit land and accordingly both the Courts below on the basis of revenue record produced on record, which consistently showed the plaintiff-respondent Vikram Singh to be in possession of the suit land have concurrently held that the plaintiff though is in possession of excess of his share, but he is entitled to protect his possession till the suit land is partitioned and the same fell to the share of the defendants. The effort of the defendant-appellant before the Lower Appellate Court, to prove the fact of possession, by producing the report of spot inspection dated 24.5.1999 carried out by AC Iind Grade, Rewari and copy of jamabandi for the year 1998-99, has also failed because those have also not been considered 2 sufficient to prove the aforementioned fact and the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been dismissed. The learned Lower Appellate court has not relied upon the aforesaid spot inspection report dated 24.5.1999, carried out pursuant to an application filed by the appellant for correction of entries of khasra girdwaris, by observing that since it was done during pendency of the civil suit, the revenue official was not competent to do so especially when the matter was not just of correction of khasra girdawari entries but was of disputed possession. The learned Lower Appellate Court has placed reliance on various judgments in that regard which have been referred in paras No.11, 14 and 16 of the judgment. Having heard the learned counsel at some length I am of the considered view that no interference of this Court is warranted in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court. The findings of possession in favour of plaintiff-respondent are based on cogent evidence, which has been analyzed in detail by the Courts below. It is well settled that this Court cannot, on re-appreciation of evidence, record a conclusion different than the one recorded by the Courts below and the learned Lower Appellate Court is considered to be the best judge of the facts as well as law. Even otherwise, I am of the view that the question of possession is a pure question of fact and ordinarily it would not give rise to a question of law. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE March 5,2009 Jiten