RSA No.3617 of 2003(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3617 of 2003(O&M) Date of decision: 22.9.2008 Chanan Singh …… Appellant versus Kabal Singh …….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * * Present: Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. * * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J . 1. The plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering or dispossessing him from the land in dispute except in due course of law. 2. As per the averments made in the suit, land measuring 11 kanals 16 marlas owned by Dharamshala Hari Singh as Muafidaran situated in village Bundala was leased out to Kabal Singh-plaintiff by Gurcharan Singh Chela Lachhman Singh as Administrator and the plaintiff is in possession of the same as tenant at will. It is further averred that the defendant- Chanan Singh alleged that he has taken on lease the suit land from the Gurcharan Singh vide a registered lease dated 31.1.1992. On the basis of the said alleged lease deed the defendant used to threaten the plaintiff to dispossess him. Hence, the suit. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant admitting that Gurcharan Singh Chela Lachhman Singh was owner of the suit land. However, it was denied that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land RSA No.3617 of 2003(O&M) 2 as a tenant. It was further asserted that land measuring 16 kanals 3 marlas was leased out to him by said Gurcharan Singh on the basis of lease deed dated 31.1.1992, on payment of Rs.50,000/- possession of which was also handed over to him. Denying other averments, dismissal of the suit was prayed. 4. After hearing the parties and perusing the record of the file, the trial Court held that the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit land and defendant has no right to dispossess him. Vide judgment and decree dated 26.2.2001 the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide impugned judgment and decree dated 5.5.2003 while dismissing the appeal filed by the defendant held that it stands proved on the file that it is the plaintiff- respondent who is in possession of the suit property and the appellant has miserably failed to prove his possession over the suit property and as such, there is no scope for interference in the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 6. Still not satisfied, the defendant-appellant has filed this appeal in this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that on 17.7.1992 Gurcharan Singh filed Civil Suit against the defendant- appellant for declaration that the lease deed dated 31.1.1992 is null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from dispossessing him from the land in dispute. The said suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 7.8.1998 Ex.DW2/3 and in this case, the Court recorded a categoric finding that the defendant-appellant had duly proved the execution and registration of the lease deed dated 31.1.1992. The appeal filed against his judgment RSA No.3617 of 2003(O&M) 3 and decree dated 7.8.1998 was dismissed by the Additional District Judge Amritsar vide his order dated 12.12.2000 Ex.DW2/8. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that when the suit of Gurcharan Singh was pending and was at the final stage, the plaintiff-respondent filed the present suit for permanent injunction claiming himself to be in possession of the land and restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering in his possession. While decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent, the Courts below have ignored that the lease deed dated 31.1.1992 in favour of the defendant-appellant is a registered document. Execution of the Lease Deed has been upheld by the Civil Court while passing judgment and decree dated 7.8.1998 (Ex.DW-2/3). This judgment has become final as appeal against this judgment was dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2000 (Ex.DW-2/8) passed by the Court of Sh. Varinder Kumar, Additional District Judge, Amritsar. Once, the execution of the Lease Deed has been proved before a Civil Court, the Lesser as well as any person claiming through him is bound by the judgment and decree. In such circumstances, finding regarding the plaintiff-respondent being in possession of the land cannot be sustained and on the basis of these arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has sought to raise the following substantial question of law: “1. Whether findings of the Courts below regarding possession of the land in dispute, which are based on revenue record corrected after execution of Lease Deed in favour of the defendant-appellant, which has been upheld by the Civil Court vide judgment and decree Ex.DW-2/3 are perverse and cannot be sustained?” 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the findings of the Courts below and has argued that the RSA No.3617 of 2003(O&M) 4 Chanan Singh-appellant made a statement in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amritsar in Civil suit No.39/92 decided on 7.8.1998 Ex.DW2/3 admitting the possession of the plaintiff-respondent and argued that in view of the admission of the appellant, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. I find force in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the respondent. A perusal of the judgment dated 7.8.1998 Ex.DW2/3 shows that a categoric finding has been recorded that Chanan Singh-appellant made a statement to the effect that Kabal Singh-respondent is in possession of the suit land. 11. In view of this categoric admission, the present appeal has no merit. No substantial question of law arises. Judgment and decrees of the Courts below are based on finding of fact recorded by the Courts below on appreciation of evidence. 12. No merit. Dismissed. September 22, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE RSA No.3617 of 2003(O&M) 5