R. S. A. No. 1745 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1745 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 11, 2011 Bhup Singh and another .... Appellants Vs. Pirthi .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. R. N. Lohan, Advocate for the appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendants Bhup Singh and his son Kulbir, who were successful in the trial court, but have been unsuccessful in the lower appellate court, have filed the instant second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff Pirthi filed suit against appellants- defendants for permanent injunction alleging that plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land, but the defendants threatened to interfere in his ownership and possession thereof, although defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit land. Accordingly, plaintiff sought injunction against the defendants from doing so. Defendants, while admitting the plaintiff to be owner of the suit R. S. A. No. 1745 of 2011 2 land, broadly denied the other plaint averments. The defendants pleaded that they are in possession of the suit land as lessees for ten years since 22.11.2007 till the year 2017. Defendants took the suit land on lease from the plaintiff on 22.11.2007 for ten years by paying Rs.7,00,000/- as lease money by way of oral agreement. Vacant possession of the suit land was handed over by the plaintiff to the defendants and accordingly, defendants are in possession thereof. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind, vide judgment and decree dated 22.09.2010, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. However, first appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed by learned District Judge, Jind, vide judgment and decree dated 01.03.2011 and thereby, suit filed by the plaintiff stands decreed. By the same judgment, lower appellate court dismissed the cross-objections filed by the defendants. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Plaintiff is recorded to be owner in possession of the suit land in the revenue record. Plaintiff has produced jamabandi (Ex.P-1) for the year 2003-04, khasra girdawari (Ex.P-2) since the year 2004 to 2007 and khasra girdawari (Ex.P-3) from 2009 to 2010. In all these documents, plaintiff is recorded to be owner as well as in possession of the suit land. The suit was filed on 07.04.2008. Defendants claimed to be in possession of the suit land as lessees since 22.11.2007. However, in the revenue record R. S. A. No. 1745 of 2011 3 till the year 2010, plaintiff is recorded to be in possession of the suit land. The defendants' version that they orally took the suit land on lease from the plaintiff for ten years by paying Rs.7,00,000/- is inherently and intrinsically unreliable. It is wholly unacceptable that defendants would pay such a huge amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the plaintiff without any receipt or other writing. Moreover, lease for ten years could not be created by oral agreement. It could be created only by way of registered deed. Defendants placed on record Abiyana receipts Mark D-1 to Mark D-3, but the said receipts do not bear khasra numbers of the land, to which the same pertain. Consequently, it cannot be said that the said receipts pertain to the suit land. Moreover, the said receipts have also not been proved. Mark D-4 document has also not been proved nor the same carries evidentiary value to depict possession of the defendants over the suit land. This document has not been signed by any authority, although it purports to be receipt of Abiyana. So, this is a forged document prepared by the defendants to create evidence in support of their version. Receipt Mark- C/Ex.D-1 has been prepared by by Patwari Rampal Singh (DW-5) to help the defendants illegally. This witness admitted that he did not even call the plaintiff to the spot at the time of his visit. Patwari Rampal Singh admitted that according to the revenue record, plaintiff is owner as well as in possession of the suit land. Khasra girdawari is prepared by Patwari after spot inspection. Khasra girdawari records possession of the plaintiff till date. In spite thereof, Patwari Rampal Singh had the guts to prepare report R. S. A. No. 1745 of 2011 4 Ex.D-1 to depict possession of the defendants over the suit land. For this dishonest and mala fide action of Patwari Rampal Singh, which apparently is result of some extraneous consideration, necessary disciplinary action has to be taken against him. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Finding recorded by the lower appellate court that plaintiff is in possession of the suit land is fully justified by the evidence on record. The said finding is the only finding that can be arrived at on proper appreciation of the evidence. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. On the contrary, plaintiff filed suit for injunction, fate whereof depends on finding of fact regarding possession of either party over the suit land. Lower appellate court is the final court of fact. The appeal is thus completely meritless and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. A copy of this judgment be sent to Deputy Commissioner, Jind for taking necessary disciplinary action in accordance with law against Patwari Rampal Singh (DW-5). May 11, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE