RSA No.981 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.981 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 11.3.2010 Raldu ......Appellant(s) Versus Sarde and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is plaintiff’s second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby the decree of the trial Court was set aside and suit of the appellant was ordered to be dismissed. In brief, the facts of the case of the appellant as set up in the plaint are that he was recorded to be in possession of the suit land and he was cultivating the same for the last more than 30 years without making any payment of rent or any interruption on the part of the defendants and other co-sharers. Defendants were not having any concern with the suit land nor they were shown into possession. However, the defendants who were strong headed persons were interfering in his peaceful possession for which they had no right. Hence , the present suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land measuring 5 kanals 6 marlas comprised in Rectangle No.139 Kill No.20/3(2-11), 140 Killa No.16(215) in any manner. The defendants contested the suit by filing joint written RSA No.981 of 2008(O&M) 2 statement thereby raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was pleaded that the plaintiff was neither owner nor in possession of the suit land and in fact the defendants were cultivating the suit land being co- sharer of the Patti RamKaur and that the plaintiff had no concern with the same. Before them, Rattna husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2 was cultivating the suit land and he also constructed a room in it. After his death, defendants were cultivating the same but the entries in the revenue record were in the name of the plaintiff and on the basis of the same, he cannot be considered as owner in possession of the suit land. So the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. On completion of evidence and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and decreed the suit restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land forcibly and illegally except in due course of law. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid findings of the trial Court, the defendant-respondents filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. On appreciation of evidence and noticing the fact that the revenue Authorities vide its order dated 11.3.2002 (Ex.D1) had corrected the entries in the name of defendants and the aforesaid order which was hotly contested and further considering the report of the Local Commissioner Ex.DX who after conducting the physical verification of the suit land and collecting the evidence, found the defendants in possession, the First Appellate Court accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit of the appellant. Challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has RSA No.981 of 2008(O&M) 3 vehemently argued that the ex parte order dated 11.3.2002 passed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade correcting the entries in the name of defendant-respondents cannot be made the basis for non-suiting the appellant and thus, the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal: “(i) Whether the change in entry in Khasra Girdawari without notice to the affected party cannot be taken into consideration?” (ii) Whether the order passed by the revenue Court during the pendency of civil suit cannot be taken into consideration in civil proceedings?” On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has supported the findings of the Lower Appellate Court and has submitted that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court. The only dispute between the parties is with regard to the possession of the disputed property. The question as to who is in possession of the suit property, is essentially a question of fact. The Lower Appellate Court on appreciation of evidence, has recorded a finding of fact in favour of the defendant-respondents. It is not the case of the appellant that the findings of the Lower Appellate Court are contrary to the evidence on record or there is no evidence to support the aforesaid findings to contend that the findings of the Lower Appellate Court are perverse. No such substantial question of law on the ground of perversity has been framed/argued. No doubt, the orders of the Revenue Authorities are not binding upon the Civil Court, however, such documents can always RSA No.981 of 2008(O&M) 4 be relied upon by the Civil Court while recording the finding of fact. Thus, I find that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. No merits. Dismissed. March 11, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE