RSA No.2323 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH REGULAR SECOND APPEALNo.2323 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 11 th MAY, 2011 Raghubir Singh .... Appellant Versus Mohan Singh & another .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. R. S. Sihota, Senior Advocate with Mr. B. R. Rana, Advocate for the appellant. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Raghubir Singh-plaintiff who was successful in the trial court, but has been non-suited by the lower appellate court, is in second appeal. Plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction alleging that he has taken land of Khasra No.18/2 on lease vide lease deed dated 12.02.1993 and is in possession thereof. Decree of trial court regarding the said land has also been affirmed by the lower appellate court and the same is not in dispute in the instant second appeal preferred by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also claimed injunction regarding land of Khasra Nos.18/1 and 23/1 alleging that the said land had also been leased out to the plaintiff and he is in possession thereof as tenant. Defendants have no right to interfere in plaintiff's possession thereon. Accordingly plaintiff claimed permanent injunction. RSA No.2323 of 2010 -2- Defendants controverted the stand of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that Niranjan Singh never gave the suit property to plaintiff for cultivation. On the contrary, Niranjan Singh gave suit property to defendant No.1 Mohan Singh for cultivation. Khasra Girdawari vide report Roznamcha Patwari No.98 dated 29.10.1999 has been illegally changed and the same is null and void. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri vide judgment and decree dated 23.01.2007 decreed the plaintiff's suit restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land except in due course of law. However, first appeal preferred by Mohan Singh-defendant No.1 has been partly allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide judgment and decree dated 05.02.2010 and thereby suit of the plaintiff remains decreed qua land of Khasra No.18/2 to the extent of share of Niranjan Singh only, whereas the suit regarding the remaining land has been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. To depict possession of the plaintiff-appellant over Khasra Nos.18/1 and 23/1, learned counsel for the appellant heavily relied on Khasra Girdawari Exhibits P-3 and P-4 which depict that initially Chain Singh-defendant No.2 and Niranjan Singh were in possession of the said land. However vide report No.98, Khasra Girdawari to the extent of half share of Niranjan Singh only in the said land was changed in favour of plaintiff w.e.f. Kharif 1999 crop. However, on the basis of this Khasra Girdawari, the plaintiff is not proved to RSA No.2323 of 2010 -3- be in possession of the said land as rightly held by the lower appellate court. The said change was affected vide report No.98 of the Patwari. Defendants specifically pleaded that the said report is null and void as Girdawari has been changed without following instructions of Financial Commissioner. Inspite of this plea, plaintiff has not even produced in evidence aforesaid report No.98 to depict as to on what basis plaintiff came to be recorded in possession of the aforesaid land. Moreover, according to instructions of Financial Commissioner, change in Khasra Girdawari can be affected only after issuing notice to the affected party. In the instant case, plaintiff has miserably failed to demonstrate that any such notice was ever given to Niranjan Singh for change of Khasra Girdawari of the aforesaid land in favour of plaintiff to the extent of half share of Niranjan Singh. Khasra Girdawari changed without any such notice is null and void and does not prove possession of the plaintiff over the said land or over the half share of Niranjan Singh therein. In fact, Niranjan Singh was also tenant in possession along with defendant No.2 Chanan Singh over the said land under Central Government which is recorded to be owner of the said land. It may also be added that plaintiff had taken the land of Khasra No.18/2 by way of lease deed, but there is no document for taking land of Khasra Nos.18/1 and 23/1 on lease from Niranjan Singh. For this reason also, it is apparent that plaintiff is not in possession of land of Khasra Nos.18/1 and 23/1 or any part thereof. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that finding of the lower appellate court that plaintiff is not in possession of the land of Khasra Nos.18/1 and 23/1 is justified by the evidence on record and is based on proper appreciation RSA No.2323 of 2010 -4- of the evidence. Said finding is not depicted to be illegal or perverse nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Consequently the said finding does not call for interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudicated in this second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine being bereft of any merit. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 11th May, 2011 'raj'