RSA No.2435 of 2009 - 1 - ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2435 of 2009 Date of decision:13.08.2010. Suresh ...Appellant Versus Mohar Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. R.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The present appeal has been preferred by defendant No.3 against judgment and decree of the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction, has been decreed. The case set up by the plaintiff is that he is owner in possession of land measuring 0 Kanal 03 Marlas falling in Khewat No.227, Khatauni No.331, Plot No.75//20/35 and the defendants have no right, title or interest in the property in dispute, but being strong headed persons and tried to grab his property and when they did not stop interfering in his peaceful possession despite requests, the present suit was filed. The suit was contested only by defendant No.3/appellant as other defendants were proceeded against ex-parte. He alleged that the plaintiff has no concern with the property in dispute and he RSA No.2435 of 2009 - 2 - ****** is not in possession thereof. It is alleged that the plaintiff has got incorporated an entry in the revenue record in his favour in collusion with the panchayat and revenue officers. It was also alleged that the property in dispute was allotted to him by the Gram Panchayat, being land-less, to construct his house and since 17.08.1982 the property is in his possession. On pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and after having obtained the evidence of the parties, the Courts below have found that the plaintiff is in possession of the land in dispute and the claim of defendant No.3/appellant that he is owner in possession of the property in dispute was not found established. The Courts below found that as per jamabandi for the year 1991-92 (Ex.P1) and for the year 2001-02 (Ex.P8), the plaintiff is recorded as owner of the property in dispute, whereas defendant No.3 himself did not enter the witness box either to claim his ownership right or possession. In view of the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below, together with the fact that no question of law much-less substantial has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any reason to take a view different from the view taken by the Courts below and as such the present appeal is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. August 13, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE