RSA No. 4864 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4864 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 21 , 2009 Ram Singh and others ...........Appellants Versus Amrik Singh ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.P.K.Garg, Advocate for the appellants. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction . The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 3.11.2006. Aggrieved by the same, defendants filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 23.7.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment reads as under:- “ 2. The background history of the case is that the suit land is shamlat patti khion and the father of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 was in possession of the same since long and after his death RSA No. 4864 of 2009 (O&M) 2 the plaintiff Bawa Singh is in possession over the same as Gair Marusi tenant. The defendants have got no concern with the same but they have threatened to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. 3. The defendants have filed the written statement alleging therein that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and the same is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties. The suit land is jointly possessed by the plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff is only having possessory title and the same has been inherited by both the plaintiff and defendants from their fore fathers and thus, the suit land is jointly possessed by them. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for ?OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD 3.Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties?OPD 4. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiff-Bawa Singh filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-appellants from interfering in his peaceful possession. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that as per the revenue record, plaintiff was recorded to be in possession of the suit land. Since the RSA No. 4864 of 2009 (O&M) 3 plaintiff was described to be in possession of the suit land, the defendants could not dispossess the plaintiff from the suit except in due course of law. The suit land is in the name of `shamlat patti khion'. The findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below cannot be interfered by this Court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge December 21, 2009 arya