RSA NO.2042 OF 2008 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 16.7.2008 Madho ...Appellant VERSUS Charan Dass and others …Respondent CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Amrik Singh, Advocate for appellant Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) This is defendants' Regular Second Appeal directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. Plaintiffs, respondents herein filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking a restraint RSA NO.2042 OF 2008 :2: order against the defendants from interfering in their possession over the suit property. Plaintiffs pleaded that plaintiff no.1 alongwith his brothers, sister and other members of their family are in possession of the suit property since the time of their ancestors Mangtu and Ram Chand. Defendants no.1 to 3 in their written statement pleaded that Khasra No.395/2 is owned and possessed by defendants no. 3 to 5 alongwith other co-sharers and the plaintiffs have no concern with the same. They also stated that they developed the property by filling earth, sand etc. towards the northern side of the suit property by spending a huge amount. Defendants no.4 and 5 filed their separate written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed as many as nine issues. Both the parties led their evidence. After appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property measuring 13 karams and 4 karams lying between khasra nos.113 and 395/2. For the purpose of returning this finding, the trial court relied upon the demarcation report Ex.P1 made by Gurnaib Singh, retired Kanungo on 12.8.2002. In his report, it has been mentioned that on the eastern side of khasra no.395/1 and 395/2 and on the western side of Kasra no. 113, a space measuring 13*4 Karams was left at the time of consolidation and it RSA NO.2042 OF 2008 :3: was lying in excess. The Local Commission also reported that this property came in possession of the plaintiffs who are using this property since long. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 12.1.2007. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants preferred an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Rupnagar which came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.4.2008. The lower appellate court, while referring to the evidence on record, including Ex.P1 and the statement of the Local Commission, affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants has vehemently argued that Ex.P1 is not a valid document as this demarcation report was obtained by the plaintiffs in absence of the defendants. He has further stated that the report is fabricated and an FIR was lodged against the Local Commission and others. It is not in dispute that the report was tendered in evidence and Gurnaib Singh, the Local Commission also appeared as a witness. He was duly cross-examined by the defendants. There is no finding by the courts below that the report is fabricated. The outcome of the FIR is also not known. Both the courts below have relied upon the demarcation report and returned the findings. Under these circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. The findings are RSA NO.2042 OF 2008 :4: based upon appreciation of evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show how the findings are bad and contrary to the evidence on record. No substantial question of law arises. I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 16.7.2008 MFK RSA NO.2042 OF 2008 :5: