RSA No. 4376 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 4376 of 2011 Date of decision: 08.11.2011 Jindo Bai @ Joginder Kaur and others … Appellants Versus Santokh Singh and others … Respondents Present: Mr. S.K.Arora, Advocate, for the appellants. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: This is defendants’ second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction and rejecting the counter claim filed by the defendant-appellants. Plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering or forcibly dispossessing them from the land measuring 33 kanals 15 marlas situated in village Mahmood Wala, Tehsil Zira. They pleaded that Surjan Singh, their ancestor, had purchased land from the Central Government by way of Conveyance-deed dated 26.10.1994 and they were in possession thereof. However, the defendants denied the possession of the plaintiffs and challenged the conveyance-deed by way of counter claim. They also preferred counter claim for declaring the allotment of land measuring 12 kanals and conveyance-deed dated 26.10.1994 to be null and void. Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.2.2009 decreed the suit thereby restraining the defendants from interfering or forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs from the land measuring 9 kanals 15 marlas and further held them to be in possession of land measuring 24 kanals and also directed the defendants to deliver vacant possession of 24 RSA No. 4376 of 2011 2 kanals of land within two months from the date of the order. In the result, it dismissed the counter claim of the defendants. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants filed an appeal. In the said appeal, they also filed an application under Order 41 rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to produce on record as additional evidence the certified copies of mutations bearing Nos. 200, 203 and 239 and certified copy of sale-deed dated 8.11.2010 in order to show that the plaintiffs had no title measuring 12 kanals and as such, they were not entitled to decree for possession of the said land. The lower appellate Court while dismissing the appeal of the defendants has also dismissed their application under Order 41 rule 27 CPC. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiffs were in possession of the land in dispute and that the defendants had no right to challenge the conveyance-deed and therefore, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and rejected the counter-claim preferred by the defendants. Heard. Counsel for the appellant-defendants has contended that neither Surjan Singh, ancestor of the plaintiffs nor the plaintiffs were ever in possession of any part of the property and that the allotment in favour of Surjan Singh on the basis of possession was thus, illegal and void whereas the appellant-defendants were in possession of part of suit land comprised in Rectangle No.13, Killa No. 4(8-0) and 7/1(4-0). There is no merit in the argument of counsel for the appellants. On the basis of evidence brought on record, a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the Courts below that the Central Government was owner of the suit land. This fact was not even denied by the defendant-appellants. On the basis of conveyance-deed, Exhibit P-1, the ancestor of the plaintiffs had become owner of the property in dispute and as per jamabandi for the year 1993-94, his possession over land measuring 9 kanals 5 marlas comprised in khasra No.6-M//4(4-12), 7/2 (2-12) and 28(2-11) stood proved whereas the possession of the defendants was found on the remaining 24 kanals. Both the Courts below have rightly concluded that on the basis of ownership, the plaintiffs were entitled to its possession and thus, decreed the suit. So far as rejection of the counter claim of the defendants is concerned, it has been held that the land in dispute was sold to Surjan Singh on 26.10.1994 by way of conveyance-deed and that the defendants came forward to challenge the same only on RSA No. 4376 of 2011 3 17.5.2001. The defendants have failed to explain the delay in challenging the conveyance-deed. Otherwise also, the defendants have not brought on record any evidence to prove that as to on what ground the conveyance- deed, Exhibit P-1, was not legal. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. November 08, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE