RSA No.4097 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4097 of 2009 Date of Decision: 31.08.2010. Jagir Singh .....Appellant Versus Darshan Singh and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr.H. S. Batth, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 ex parte. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) This is second appeal by Jagir Singh-defendant No.1. Suit was filed by Darshan Singh-respondent No.1-plaintiff against appellant and proforma respondent Nos.2 to 4. The plaintiff alleged that he is in possession of 8 kanals 1 marla suit land comprised of khasra Nos.70//18/1 (5-8), 18/2 (1-5), 18/3 (0-9) and 18/4 (0-19) as co-sharer, but the defendants who have no concern with the suit land got their names incorporated in jamabandis and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. Accordingly, plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and from dispossessing him therefrom. Defendants denied the plaint allegations. It was pleaded that plaintiff is neither co-sharer nor in possession of khasra No.18/4 (0-19). It was also denied that plaintiff is co-sharer in possession of RSA No.4097 of 2009 -2- the remaining suit land. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tarn Taran vide judgment and decree dated 24.01.2008 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. However, first appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed partly by learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran vide judgment and decree dated 28.08.2009 and thereby plaintiff's suit has been decreed partly restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over part of the suit land comprised of khasra Nos.18/3 (0-9) and 18/4 (0-19), illegally and forcibly, except in due course of law. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant did not assail the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court relating to land of khasra No.18/3 (0-9). However, learned counsel for the appellant contended that appellant and his brother Har Gopal are owner in possession of land of khasra No.18/4 (0-19) as depicted in jamabandi for 2005-06. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1- plaintiff contended that plaintiff was recorded to be in possession of land of khasra No.18/4 (0-19) in khasra girdwaris Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-5 and application for correction of khasra girdwari of the said land moved by appellant and his brother Har Gopal stands dismissed by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25.01.2005 Ex.P.3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the appellant and his brother have been wrongly and erroneously recorded to be in RSA No.4097 of 2009 -3- possession of the said land in jamabandi for the year 2005-06 and the said entry was procured during pendency of the suit. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Perusal of khasra Girdawaris Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-5 since before the filing of the suit reveals that plaintiff is in exclusive possession of land of khasra No.18/4 (0-19), although the same was recorded in the ownership of appellant's father Pyare Singh. Defendants themselves pleaded that they had moved application for correction of khasra girdwari of the said land. However, the said application stands dismissed by Assistant Collector vide order dated 25.01.2005 Ex.P-3. Consequently, there was no basis for recording the appellant and his brother Har Gopal to be in possession of the said land in jamabandi for the year 2005-06 prepared during the pendency of the suit and apparently the said entry has been procured without any basis and the same is, therefore, erroneous and liable to be discarded. On the contrary, in view of entries in khasra girdwaris, plaintiff is proved to be in possession of the said land. In addition to the aforesaid, even the appellant himself admitted in cross-examination that plaintiff is in possession of 1 kanal 8 marlas land out of the suit land i.e land of khasra No.18/3(0-9) and 18/4 (0-19). Defendants' witness Surjit Singh DW-2 also admitted this fact. Consequently, it is established by documentary evidence as well as oral evidence including oral evidence of the defendants themselves that plaintiff is in possession of land of khasra No.18/4. Finding of the lower appellate Court to this effect is, therefore, not vitiated in any manner. On the other hand, the said finding is fully justified by documentary and oral evidence on record and is RSA No.4097 of 2009 -4- supported by cogent reasons. Lower appellate Court is the final Court of fact. Finding recorded by the lower appellate Court in this regard is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in second appeal nor question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal regarding the said finding. The plaintiff having been proved to be in established possession of the said land cannot be dispossessed therefrom except in due course of law. Consequently, judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court do not warrant interference in this appeal. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merit in the instant second appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. 31.08.2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE