RSA No.4616 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4616 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 13, 2011 Punjab Forest Department and another ….Appellants Versus Pritam Singh and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Satish Bhanot, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant-State. Ms. Sonia G. Singh Samber, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** SABINA, J.(ORAL) Plaintiff Pritam Singh had filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that he was in cultivating possession of the suit land. Earlier, Canal Department had tried to take possession from the plaintiff forcibly and the plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed in terms of judgment and decree dated 07.09.1993 (Ex.P3). Now defendants No.2 and 3 were alleging that the suit land had been transferred in their name and they wanted to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff. Defendants No.2 and 3 in their written statement averred that earlier the suit land was owned by Canal Department, Bathinda Branch but thereafter the land had been transferred in the name of defendants No.2 and 3. Thereafter the defendants No.2 and 3 were in possession of the suit land. -1- RSA No.4616 of 2009 Defendants No.4 to 6 in their reply admitted the claim of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 was proceeded ex parte as none had appeared on its behalf despite service. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for ?OPP 2. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 3 .Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 4. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 19.07.2006 trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and restrained the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff illegally and forcibly and also restrained the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the property in dispute. Aggrieved by the said judgment, defendants No.2 and 3 had filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 06.06.2008. Hence, the present appeal by defendants No.2 and 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal. As per Exhibit P-1, copy of the jamabandi for the year 2000-01, plaintiff was described to be in possession of the suit land. A presumption of truth is attached to the entry in the Jamabandi. However, the defendants had failed to rebut the said presumption. Defendants had also failed to establish -2- RSA No.4616 of 2009 that they were in possession of the suit land as no record of plantation alleged to have been carried out by them was produced on record. Admittedly, earlier the suit property was owned by Canal Department, Bathinda Branch and suit filed by the plaintiff against the said canal branch was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 07.09.1993. Plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction against the canal department and they were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this case. Dismissed. 13.01.2011 (SABINA) vcgarg JUDGE -3-