R.S.A No.2954 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : October 21, 2009 1. R.S.A No.2954 of 2007 Smt. Kapoori Devi and others vs Shyam Singh and others, 2. R.S.A No.3144 of 2007 Gram Panchayat Jattal, Tehsil vs Shyam Singh and others & Distt. Panipat *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the appellants in RSA No.2954 of 2007. None for the appellant in RSA No.3144 of 2007. Mr. R.S.Malik, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 6. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of RSA Nos.2954 and 3144 of 2007, as common questions of law and fact are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from RSA No.2954 of 2007. This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 6 to protect their possession over the land in dispute. Both the Courts have found that the land in dispute was earlier recorded as Jumla Mustarka Malkan and that the respondents were shown in R.S.A No.2954 of 2007 ::2:: possession thereof in the revenue record consistently. The following questions have been proposed :- “i) Whether the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are liable to be set aside when it is clearly proved on the record that plaintiffs/contesting respondents failed to prove their possession over the land in dispute ? ii) Whether injunction can be issued against a co- sharer when it is proved on the record that he is in cultivating possession over the land in dispute ? iii) Whether the learned civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit relating to `Jumla Mustarka Malkan' ? iv) Whether mere a suit for injunction is maintainable when it is proved on the record that plaintiffs are not in cultivating possession over the land in dispute ?” It would be seen that all the questions raised are either questions of fact or, as in the case of question No. (iv), a question of law which can be raised only if the question of fact is decided in favour of the appellants. In RSA No. 3144 of 2007, same questions have been proposed. As regards question No.(iii), the only relief granted to the respondents is that they should not be dis-possessed except in due course of law. Such a suit can always be maintainable before a Civil Court. Consequently, both the appeals are dismissed with, however, no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) October 21, 2009. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No.2954 of 2007 ::3::