RSA No.3820 of 2009 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3820 of 2009. (O&M) Decided on: October 27, 2009. Gopal Dass .. Appellant VERSUS Lekh Ram and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the appellant M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff-appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of reversal passed by the lower appellate Court. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.10.2008, decreed the suit of plaintiff for declaration and held that plaintiff-appellant Gopal Dass is owner in possession of Killa No.23 (0-10) min Paschim uttar and defendants-respondents are owners in possession of Killa No.23 (3- 7) min Paschim Dakshin. The defendants-respondents were restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of area of 10 marlas min Paschim uttar killa No.23 of Rectangle No.38 and from removing the bore and the Dharamshala of the plaintiffs therefrom. . . . 1 RSA No.3820 of 2009 (O&M) The lower appellate Court has reversed the findings of the trial Court holding that recital in the sale deed regarding sale of Eastern- Southern side of Killa No.23 to the defendants was not acted upon and the parties had divided the land as reflected in the revenue authorities and they had taken possession of their respective shares, as such, the parties have not acted upon mutation entries, it was not open to them to challenge the same after a lapse of 22 years. Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has contended that the report of the Local Commissioner EX.P5 and site plan EX.P1, establish that the mutation entered at No.2171 on the basis of the sale deed dated 19.06.1978, was not in consonance with the sale deed dated 19.06.1978, and that the plaintiff is in possession of the area of 10 marlas in the Western-Southern side of Killa No.22 (3-17) Rectangle No.38. I have heard counsel for the appellant, at length, and with his assistance considered the facts and circumstances of the present case. The lower appellate Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on the record to arrive at the conclusion that neither from the site plan EX.P1 nor from the report of Local Commissioner EX.P5, any conclusion can be arrived at that the appellant was not in possession of the land falling to Western-Northern side of Killa No.23, and that the plaintiff failed to explain as to why he had been relying upon the revenue entries throughout since 1978, especially when Aks Shhajra about the demarcation and situation of Khasra . . . 2 RSA No.3820 of 2009 (O&M) Nos.23/1 and 23/2, was duly available with the revenue authorities. The lower appellate Court has carefully appreciated that till 1987, plaintiff-appellant was neither owner nor in possession of the property in dispute. He has claimed his ownership and possession through Chanderwati since deceased. The finding of fact has been arrived at by the lower appellate Court on appreciation of evidence that recital in the sale deed regarding sale of Eastern-Southern side of Killa No.23 to the defendants was not acted upon and the parties had divided land as is reflected in the revenue record and that they had taken possession of their respective shares. The parties have acted upon the mutation entries for a period of 22 years, as such, it was not open to them to challenge the same. So far as the report of the Local Commissioner EX.P5, is concerned, the lower appellate Court has rejected the same. No substantial question of law could be pointed out to interfere in the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing the finding of the trial Court. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE October 27, 2009. rka . . . 3