Regular Second Appeal No.3088 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No.3088 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 23, 2010 Parkash and others ---Appellants versus Mam Chand and others ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the appellants *** GURDEV SINGH, J. The appellants-defendants have preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 9.3.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Faridabad, vide which their first appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2007 passed by Civil Judge(Senior Division), Faridabad, decreeing the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit property bearing No. 151, situated within the abadi deh of village Deeg, Tehsil Ballabhgarh District Faridabad, was dismissed. The plaintiffs averred in their plaint that they are the owners in Regular Second Appeal No.3088 of 2010 -2- possession of the property in dispute as per the Naksha Lal Dora of the village, which is their ancestral property and is being used by them for tethering their cattle and other purposes. They are in peaceful use and occupation thereof but the defendants are adamant to interfere in their peaceful possession. Therefore, they filed suit for permanent injunction after their requests to the defendants, for not interfering in their peaceful possession, were declined. The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendant No. 1 to 7 filed joint written statement, in which they denied the contentions of the plaintiffs. They pleaded that they inherited this property from their ancestors in the year 1954-55 and since then they are in continuous possession thereof and are using it for tethering their cattle and placing their dung cakes etc. They have also erected chhappar thereof, which is being used by them for the purposes of their residence. The plaintiffs were never in possession thereof. The plaintiffs have concealed the material facts from this court and they have neither any locus standi nor any cause of action to file the suit and the same is not maintainable. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and the parties were called upon to produce their evidence in support of those issues. The evidence produced by the parties was gone into by the trial court and after hearing learned counsel on their behalf, the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and their suit was decreed. I have heard learned counsel for the defendants. It has been submitted by counsel for the defendants that the property in dispute is an open site and none of the parties produced any evidence regarding their ownership. Both the lower courts placed reliance Regular Second Appeal No.3088 of 2010 -3- on the list, Ex. P-1, prepared by the Gram Panchayat. The person, who prepared that list was never examined in the court and there is no provision of law for preparing such a list. In that eventuality, no finding could have been recorded on the basis of such like evidence. He tried to assert that the substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal as to whether the finding in favour of the plaintiffs could have been recorded on the basis of such like evidence. Though, the author of the list(Ex. P-1) was never examined in the court, yet evidence was produced for proving the genuineness of that list. Resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat, the copy of which was proved on the record as Ex. P-4, for preparing the list of the owners of the property within Lal Lakir of the village and objections were invited to the same. Vide the second Resolution, the copy of which was proved on the record as Ex. P-5, no objection was filed and that list was approved. The Gram Panchayat was competent to prepare such list. There is no doubt about the genuineness thereof. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs in respect of Plot No. 151 and they are recorded to be the owners of that plot in that list. That was used as corroborative piece of evidence by the lower courts for placing reliance on the other evidence produced by the plaintiffs that they are coming in possession of the property in dispute. Concurrent findings of facts were recorded by both the lower courts and no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. The same is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE December 23, 2010 PARAMJIT