Regular Second Appeal No. 228 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 228 of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.3.2009 *** Gurbax Singh & Anr. Appellants VS. Vidhu Bhushan Vaid & Ors. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate for the appellants. ARVIND KUMAR, J. The appellants were the defendants No.1 and 3 in the suit for possession filed by plaintiff-respondents No.1 to 5. They have come up in this second appeal to lay challenge to the judgment and decree dated 11.8.2008 passed by the learned first Appellate Court below by dint of which the suit of the plaintiffs, which was dismissed by the learned trial court, has been decreed by setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking possession of the suit land with the averments that earlier their father was the owner of the suit land, who inducted the defendants as their tenant thereon, who in turn used to pay lagan to them. After the death of their father they have become owners of the suit land and since now the defendants have failed to pay any rent to them, they are liable to be evicted from the suit land being in unauthorized occupation of the same. On the other hand the stand of the defendants was that neither the plaintiffs nor earlier their father was owner of the suit land, rather it is the defendants who are owners in possession of the same and the plaintiffs Regular Second Appeal No. 228 of 2009 2 have no concern. It is further averred that due to mistake the suit land was entered in the name of father of plaintiff and the land which was to be allotted to the father of plaintiff namely Gurbax Rai was wrongly entered in the name of defendant Gurbax Singh, which was rectified lateron and mutation No.286 was sanctioned in their favour. The learned trial court finding the revenue record short of proving the title of the plaintiff over the suit property dismissed the same. That apart the learned trial court also concluded that the defendants have also failed to prove their title over the suit property. The learned appellate Court below, on an appeal preferred by the plaintiff, set aside the findings of the learned trial court and decreed the suit by directing the defendants to hand over its vacant possession to the plaintiff. Hence this regular second appeal. It emerges out from the record that as per jamabandi Ex.P1 the father of plaintiffs was shown as owner of the suit property and after his death on 17.2.1988, mutation No.537 was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs being legal representatives of deceased Gurbax Rai. Even thereafter in the revenue record i.e. jamabandies for the years 1979-80, 1984-85, 1989-90 and 1994-95, as produced on record, the plaintiffs were shown as owners of the suit land while the respondents were shown in possession of the same as gair dakhilkar. The plea of the defendants of their becoming owners in possession of the suit land by virtue of mutation No.286 sanctioned on 12.6.1958 do not find favour of the Courts below since there was no follow up of this mutation. Moreover, the revenue record produced in context of this mutation Ex.DA and Ex.DB was also found not proved by the defendants as per law to prove that their father Gurbax Singh first became owner in possession of the suit property and after his death, they acquired the title in the suit property. The theory of defendants of occurring of mistake in revenue record during consolidation and thereafter sale of land by father of plaintiff to Gurbax Singh defendant was found not proved as no proof regarding the same was produced. Thus, while taking into consideration the revenue record where the defendants were shown to have paid some share of produce to the owners, which they stopped paying later, it was rightly held that the defendants who are in unauthorized occupation of the suit land, are liable to hand over its vacant possession to Regular Second Appeal No. 228 of 2009 3 its owner i.e. the plaintiffs. The aforesaid findings are discernible from paras No.11 and 12 of the judgment passed by the learned appellate court. In view of this there is no room to interfere in the findings recorded by the first appellate Court below, while setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the appellate Court below suffer from any illegality or perversity or that the same are based on no evidence. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this regular second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE March 23,2009 Jiten