R.S.A. No.2172 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.2172 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision:02.07.2009. Maya Devi ...Appellant Versus Municipal Corporation, Hansi ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sanjay S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** AJAY TEWARI, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff – appellant for permanent injunction. The case set up was that the plaintiff – appellant had purchased the land measuring 35 Sq. Yards from Nar Singh Dass and that she was in possession of the same and that due to enmity with the Municipal Councillor of the area, the Municipal Council, Hansi wanted to encroach upon her shop. Reliance was placed upon the jamabandi, sale deed, site plan and the demarcation report. The learned Courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff – appellant holding that she has not been able to establish that the area in dispute is in Khasra No.922. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the demarcation was done by a revenue official and, thus, the learned Courts below have erred in ignoring the same. In my opinion, this is a pure question of fact. The reasons R.S.A. No.2172 of 2007 (O&M) -2- mentioned by the learned lower Appellate Court for not giving effect to the demarcation report can, by no stretch of imagination be termed as perverse. Learned counsel for the appellant has framed the following legal questions: - i) Whether in a simplicitor suit for permanent injunction only the question of possession over the land in question has to be ascertained or not? ii) Whether the possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute and the identity of the land in dispute stands proved from the document available on the file (Ex.P1 to Ex.P5) when no contrary evidence has been led by the respondent? iii) Whether the presumption of truth is not attached to the entries in the Jamabandi showing the possession of the appellant over the suit land? iv) Whether the learned Courts below have not erred in ignoring the material evidence on record? v) Whether the finding recorded by the Courts below are based on misreading of the evidence? In my opinion, questions Nos.(ii) to (v) are pure questions of fact, the answer to which would necessarily depend upon the correctness of the demarcation report on which I have given my opinion above. No arguments have been addressed on question No.1. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. July 02, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) vinod JUDGE