RSA NO.5181 OF 2003 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 7.7.2008 Sant Ram and others ...Appellants VERSUS Hakam Singh and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT:Mr.Parduman Yadav, Advocate for appellants Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for respondents Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) This is defendants’ Regular Second Appeal directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. Predecessor-in-interest of respondents no.1 to 10, namely, Chanderbhan filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any sort of construction and from dispossessing him from the land comprised in Khewat No.79, Khata No.108, Rect.No.5, Killa No.15/1(5-7), situated within the revenue estate of Village Hasanpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession of the suit property for the last 40 years. The suit property abuts the house of the plaintiff. It is alleged that the defendants, appellants herein are threatening to dispossess the plaintiff. RSA NO.5181 OF 2003 :2: Defendants, appellants herein in their written statement pleaded that they are the owners in possession of the suit land and had constructed a chappar and Riwara for goats etc. They are also using the suit land for storing their Bitoras, cow dungs, stones, fire woods etc. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed as many as seven issues. However, the main issue is regarding the possession of the plaintiff. Both the parties led their respective evidence. Plaintiff produced copies of Jamabandi Ex.P1 to P-3 and copy of Khasra Girdawari Ex.P4. In all these documents, plaintiff is shown to be in possession of the suit property. To the contrary, the defendants/appellants have produced some photographs and site plan to establish their possession. During the pendency of the suit, a Local Commissioner was appointed who reported that the plaintiff has constructed a pacca house. The Commissioner also reported that there is a kacha chappar and also an enclosure made with wooden sticks having thorms in them. Although there is no mention that the chappar belongs to the appellants/defendants who claim to be in possession of the Chappar and residing therein with family. On the basis of the entries in the revenue record and the material on record, the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 11.9.1995 decreed the suit of the plaintiff and restrained the defendants/appellants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. An appeal preferred therefrom by the appellants also came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.1999 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gurgaon. The first lower appellate court, after going through the evidence on record, RSA NO.5181 OF 2003 :3: affirmed the findings of fact recorded by the trial court. It is against the aforesaid decrees that the defendants have come up in appeal before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellants have vehemently argued that the photographs clearly demonstrate that the defendants have constructed a chappar. He has further stated that the defendants have produced a site plan to show their possession which has not been believed by the courts below. Both the courts below have heavily relied upon the revenue record, particularly khasra girdawari which shows the possession of the plaintiff. The Local Commissioner has established that the pacca house has been constructed by the plaintiff, though the report mentions about a chappar, but it is not stated anywhere whether the chappar belongs to the defendants. On the basis of the appreciation of evidence, both the courts below have concurrently held the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit property. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the presumption attached to the revenue entries is rebuttable. It is settled law that very strong evidence is required to rebutt such a presumption. Both the courts below have heavily relied upon the documentary evidence, in the shape of revenue record. No interference is warranted. No substantial question of law arises. I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 7.7.2008 MFK RSA NO.5181 OF 2003 :4: RSA NO.5181 OF 2003 :5: