IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- Regular Second Appeal No. 504 of 2008 Date of decision: 20.2.2008 Municipal Committee, Tauru --- Appellant Versus Mohan Lal --- Respondent == CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Ms. Manisha Lamba, Advocate for the appellant. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This second appeal is at the instance of the defendant- Municipal Committee, Tauru against whom a decree for permanent injunction has been passed by the trial court on 12.3.2007, which has been affirmed by the first appellate court, vide judgment and decree dated 8.11.2007. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction on the strength of averments that there were about 30 families of Bagri Mahajan community within the municipal limits of Tauru. The suit land comprising Rectangle No. 159, measuring 3 Kanals and 4 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Tauru, District Gurgaon had been in RSA No. 504 of 2008 the possession of the plaintiff and other members of the Bagri Mahajan community, for the last about 150 years as the same was being used by them as cremation ground from the time immemorial. The suit land is enclosed by a six feet high boundary wall and there exists a pucca verandah measuring 17’x23’ and a well. The defendant issued a notice under Section 181 of the Haryana Municipal Act requiring the plaintiff to vacate the suit property, otherwise, the construction raised on the suit land would be demolished. Swayed by the defendant’s threat, the plaintiff came into action and filed the suit. The defendant denied the facts stated by the plaintiff and claimed that the defendant is owner in possession of the suit land. However, issuance of notice by the defendant under Section 181 of the Act ibid was admitted. The trial court examined the controversy in the light of the evidence on record and the law on the subject. In view of findings recorded on various issues framed, the suit was decreed, restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff and other members of the Bagri Mahajan Community of Tauru, over the suit land bearing Khasra No. 159(3-4) situated in the area of Tauru, District Mewat and also from demolishing the existing construction etc. over the suit property, forcibly and illegally, except in due course of law. The finding to the aforesaid effect came to be recorded on the strength of the words of mouth of the witnesses produced by the plaintiff whose versions stood duly corroborated by the documentary evidence on record because no evidence had been led by the defendant to rebut the evidence produced by the plaintiff or to fortify their plea raised in the 2 RSA No. 504 of 2008 written statement despite having availed of several opportunities for this purpose. Since the plaintiff was found to be in possession of the suit land with the acquiescence of the true owner, it was observed further by the trial court that the plaintiff and other members of Bagri Mahajan community could not have been said to be the encroachers of the suit land or in unauthorized possession thereof. The first appellate court also concurred with the findings returned by the trial court. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. The findings assailed herein are concurrent findings of fact based on correct appraisal of the unrebutted and unchallenged oral as well as documentary evidence led by the plaintiff. No error of law or any sort of perversity could be pointed out by the counsel for the appellant. There is nothing wrong with the line of reasoning adopted by the courts below while recording the above findings. No substantial question of law arises in the appeal for consideration by this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) February 20, 2008 JUDGE *MALIK* 3