IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4612 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: November 2, 2011. Jasmer and another. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Mam Chand son of Shri Sawan. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. S.K.Verma, Advocate for the appellants. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 28.07.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri dismissing appeal filed by the present appellants-defendants against judgment and decree dated 03.08.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Yamunanagar at Jagadhri decreeing the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for permanent injunction. RSA No.4612 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed suit for a decree for permanent injunction regarding land in dispute bearing Khewat no.68, Khatoni no.106, Khasra no.25//8, Gair Mumkin Bara measuring three Marlas situated in village Bhagwanpur on the plea that the same was earlier owned by his father Sawan Ram and after his death the same was inherited by respondent-plaintiff and his brothers and sisters and that now they are owners in possession of the suit land and they have also raised construction of a Kacha Kotha on the said land and are using the same. On notice being issued, appellants-defendants have taken the plea that neither respondent- plaintiff is owner nor in possession of land in dispute and that rather defendant is owner in possession of the suit property. On appreciation of the evidence adduced by both the parties, learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff. Appeal filed by present appellants-defendants against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by learned appellate Court. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellants-defendants that respondent-plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and that however, he has failed to proved that he is in possession of the property in dispute and that rather present appellants-defendants are proved to be owners in possession of the same. Both the courts have relied upon the 2 RSA No.4612 of 2010 entries made in the Jamabandi regarding Khasra no.25/8 measuring three Marlas which has been recorded in favour of Sawan Ram father of respondent-plaintiff as owner in possession. There is specific plea of respondent-plaintiff that after death of his father, the property in dispute was inherited by respondent-plaintiff and his brothers and sisters and since then they are owners in possession of the same. Even Puran Chand, DW1 examined by appellant-defendant admitted that earlier father of respondent- plaintiff was owner in possession of Khasra no.25/8. Even Mam Chand, DW2 admitted that after the death of their father Sawan Ram, respondent- plaintiff and his brothers and sisters inherited the suit property. There is presumption of truth attached to the entries of Jamabandi unless the same are rebutted. No sufficient evidence has been adduced by present appellants- defendants to rebut the entries made in the revenue record. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 3 RSA No.4612 of 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 2, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 4