RSA No. 1836 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1836 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.4.2011. Lal Singh .......Appellant Vs. Chaman Lal & others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was owner in possession of the house/land measuring 8 Marlas bearing Khasra No. 26/123/2 situated in village Agampur. The defendants were threatening to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The defendants, in connivance with the revenue authorities, had got the names of his predecessors in interest, incorporated in the revenue record in the column of possession. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property. A compromise had been affected between the parties on 19.1.1986. Thereafter, the predecessors in interest of the defendants had RSA No. 1836 of 2011 (O&M) -2- raised construction over the suit property. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession as prayed for in the alternative plea? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form and the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act, conduct, long silence, admission and acquiescence from filing the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD 6. Whether the suit is band for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 7. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 8. Relief.” Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 7.8.2009, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and restrained the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants No. 2, 4 and 6 to 9 preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Additional District Judge (FTC) vide judgment and decree dated 4.10.2010 and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Hence, RSA No. 1836 of 2011 (O&M) -3- the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. As per the copy of the jamabandi for the year 1983- 1984 (placed on record as Annexure A-2) Lal Singh, plaintiff is described as owner of Khasra No. 261/123/2 (0-8). In the column of possession Ram Lok, Babu and Bachnu have been described to be in possession in equal shares to the extent of ½ share. Mansha and Rugha have been described to be in possession in two equal shares. Bahjna, Bihari, Ratan Chand and Sheru @ Shamsher Singh have been described to be in possession of one equal share of the remaining half share. The possession of Ram Lok etc. has been described as Gair Marusian. Initially, Bachan Singh son of Assa Singh was owner of Khasra No. 261/123 measuring 1 Kanals 5 Marlas. Plaintiff purchased 8 Marlas of land from Bachan Singh out of the said khasra number vide sale deed (Ex. P-1) dated 2.6.1982. Thus, as per the jamabandi (Annexure A-2) and the jamabandies, thereafter placed on record before the trial court, Bachan Singh was not described to be in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff, however, failed to establish that the entries in the revenue record had been incorrectly changed qua possession. Plaintiff had, thus, failed to substantiate his plea that he was in possession of the suit property. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Annexure A-4 copy of the jamabandi for the year 1963-1964 to substantiate his plea that Bachan Singh son of Assa Singh was in possession of the suit property. However, the said copy of the jamabandi was not placed on RSA No. 1836 of 2011 (O&M) -4- record before the trial court. In these circumstances, the learned first appellate court rightly held that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was in possession of the suit property. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 27, 2011 Gurpreet