R.S.A.No. 530 of 2010(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 530 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 24.2.2011 Gram Panchayat of village Bhondian ......Appellant Versus Balwant Singh .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.A.S.Gill, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction that the defendant be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and from restraining the defendant from allowing the flow of water of drain into the property of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he had purchased the suit property from Balwant Rai on 24.6.1988 and he was in possession of the suit property since then. Mehar Singh- defendant was constructing a drain and the water was to terminate in the property of the plaintiff. R.S.A.No. 530 of 2010(O&M) 2 Defendant, in its written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the plaintiff had encroached upon the Panchayat land and was interfering in the functioning of the panchayat. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable as per preliminary objection No.1 of the written statement? OPD 3. Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 28.3.2006 and restrained the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property bearing khasra No.133/1. Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 29.7.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. In the present case, the plaintiff had purchased the suit property vide sale deed Ex.PA. As per the jamabandi placed on record, the suit property bearing khasra No.133/1 measured 2 kanals 5 marlas. The entries in the jamabandi are entitled to presumption of truth. The defendant-Gram panchayat, on the other hand, had failed to rebut the said presumption of truth. Both the Courts below, after R.S.A.No. 530 of 2010(O&M) 3 appreciating the evidence on record, have given a finding of fact that the suit property bearing khasra No.133/1 measured 2 kanals 5 marlas and as per the revenue record, the said khasra number was owned and possessed by the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be decreed. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 24, 2011 anita