RSA No. 365 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 365 of 2008 Date of Decision: 31-08-2009 Sohan Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Gram Panchayat, village Chak Sabhu .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Shri Vikas Bahl, Advocate,for the appellants. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby their suit for permanent injunction was dismissed on the basis of possession. The plaintiffs rely upon purchase of land vide writing dated 9.12.1969 from one Malkiat Singh for a consideration of Rs.1400/-. It was alleged that the plaitniffs are in possession from the date of purchase of the land. On the other hand, the stand of the defendant was that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit and that Malkiat Singh was never the owner in possession of the suit property nor he was competent to sell the property to Mehnga Singh. The writing dated 9.12.1969 was alleged to be false, forged and fabricated document. After examining the evidence led by the parties, the learned RSA No. 365 of 2008 (2) trial Court found that Exhibit P.1 writing dated 9.12.1969 cannot be read into evidence as same purports to transfer the immovable property of the value of more than Rs.100/-. Since transfer of the property in question was not effected by a registered document, no reliance can be placed upon the writing dated 9.12.1969. Still further, the assertion that the plaintiffs are in possession was sought to be supported by the act of storing manure on the suit property. It was found that such user will not change the legal possession of the suit property. The question whether the suit property is a Sham Lat Deh or not, cannot be examined by the Civil Court, as such question falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation), 1961 [ for short `the Act' ]. In appeal, the learned first Appellate Court, apart from affirming the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, also found that the Gram Panchayat has pleaded that on 3.8.1999, it had taken control and possession of the suit property and such fact was not controverted by the plaintiffs in their replication. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that vide document Exhibit D.2 dated 19.7.1999, the Deputy Commissioner was requested by Panchayat to take possession from Sham Lat Deh, by using force. It is thus, contended that the plaintiffs, who are in established possession, could not be dispossessed, except in due course of law by taking recourse to the provisions of the Act. I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The plaintiffs have claimed possession as owners having purchased the property from Malkiat Singh. In the absence of any proof of title of Malkiat Singh over the suit property, the plaintiffs cannot RSA No. 365 of 2008 (3) derive any title over the same. Even the purchase of land by the plaintiff is on the basis of unregistered writing. The use of vacant land by storing manure, is not an act of possession, but only a temporary use, which cannot be protected by seeking injunction from the Civil Court. The question whether the suit land vests with the Panchayat is a question of title which can only be examined by the authorities under the Act. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 31.8.2009 ds