Regular Second Appeal No. 3440 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3440 of 2009 Date of Order: 20.10.2009 Ravinder Kumar ....Appellant Versus Municipal Council, Narnaul and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal,Advocate for the appellant. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The appellant challenges the judgments and decrees dated 08.10.2005 and 20.08.2009, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul, dismissing his suit, allowing the counter claim filed by Siri Kishan Sanghi, since deceased and now represented by respondents no.2 to 11 and dismissing his appeal. The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming to be owner in possession of 1 bigha out of khasra no.4708. The Municipal Council filed a written statement claiming to be owner in possession of the entire khasra no.4708 measuring 14 bighas and 10 biswas. Siri Kishan Sanghi, since deceased, filed a written statement claiming that he was in possession of the entire 14 bighas and 10 biswas, which is owned by the Punjab Wakf Board, as a tenant since 23.05.1965. In addition, Siri Kishan Sanghi filed a counter claim to restrain the appellant from interfering in his possession. After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant and decreed the counter claim. The trial court held that the Regular Second Appeal No. 3440 of 2009 -2- appellant has failed to produce any evidence of his ownership or his possession. The khasra girdwari, showing him in possession was cancelled and, therefore, did not entitle him to any relief. As regards the counter claim, the trial court held that Siri Kishan Sanghi was recorded as a tenant since the year 1965, he was entitled to protect his possession. The Municipal Councils claim of ownership and possession was rejected by holding that the Punjab Wakf Board is owner of the suit land. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 20.08.2009, the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellant submits that the counter claim filed by Siri Kishan Sanghi could not have been decreed as he has failed to adduce any evidence to establish his tenancy. It is argued that in the absence of any rent receipt or any lease deed, the counter claim should have been rejected. I have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgments and decrees, considered the arguments and the substantial questions of law framed by counsel for the appellant and express my inability to hold that the impugned judgments and decrees are in any manner incorrect or raise any questions of law much less the substantial questions of law, framed by counsel for the appellant. The revenue entries record Siri Kishan Sanghi as a tenant in possession from the year 1969-1970 on payment of Rs.65/- per year, first under the Provincial Government, then under the Municipal Council. The appellant has failed to rebut the presumption of correctness attached to these revenue entries. The argument that Siri Kishan Sanghi has failed to produce any rent receipt or refer to any document with regard to payment of rent are belied by the documents on record, namely, the treasury challans etc. referred to by the courts below. A reference in this regard Regular Second Appeal No. 3440 of 2009 -3- would necessarily have to be made to an extract from the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, which reads as under:- “Now coming to the revenue record jamabandi for the year 1989-90 Ex.P4 is there on the record and Siri Kishan Sanghi has been recorded as lessee under Municipal Council whereas in jamabandi Ex.D1 for the year 1969-70 Siri Kishan has been recorded as lessee @ Rs.65/- per year under Provincial Government and in jamabandi for the year 1975-75 Ex.D2 same position is there and in Ex.D3 for the year 1979-80 the same position is there as Siri Kishan has been recorded as patedar @ Rs.65/- per year under the Provincial Government Ex.P4 is jamabandi for the year 1989-90 wherein Provincial Government has been substituted by the Municipal Council and defendant No.2 has been shown as Pattedar and then after in khasra girdawari Ex.D5 to Ex.D11 Siri Kishan has been shown as Pattedar upto the year 1997 as evident from girdawari Ex.D11. Document Ex.D15 is treasury challan whereby defendant no.2 deposited the amount of Rs.4330/- as lease money from kharif 1996 to Rabi 2003 and this fact again substantiates possession of defendant no.2 over the disputed land. Likewise the order Ex.D14 was passed in an appeal against the order passed on an application Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in a litigation between Punjab Wakf Board and Siri Kishan and again Siri Kishan defendant No.2 was held to be the lessee and as such there is overwhelming evidence on record which establishes Regular Second Appeal No. 3440 of 2009 -4- possession of the defendant no.2 over the disputed property earlier under the Provincial Government and then under Municipal Council and then now Punjab Wakf Board.” In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed. October 20, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE