RSA No.4761 of 2009(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4761 of 2009(O & M) Date of Decision: March 04, 2010 Hoshiar Singh ...... Appellant Versus Mohan Singh and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.M.L.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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. This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering in their possession except in due course of law. The case set up by the respondents was that they were Gair Marusi tenants over the land in dispute and the mere fact that the appellant had purchased the same would not entitle the appellant to forcibly dispossess them from the land in dispute. Both the courts on a conspectus of the revenue record came to the conclusion that the respondents were in settled possession of the land in dispute and consequently decreed the suit. RSA No.4761 of 2009(O & M) 2 The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the finding recorded by the learned trial Court on issue no.1 is erroneous? ii)Whether khasra girdawari or jamabandi can be presumed to be truth when they are rebutted one? iii)Whether the sale deed had preference over the jamabandi and khasra girdawari? iv)Whether the appellant has proved their case with documentary evidence especially the mortgage and redemption deed and subsequently the sale deed and if the same is proved findings recorded by the courts below is erroneous and given on wrong interpretation of law? It would be seen that the only important question is question No.(i) which is a pure question of fact. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings of the Courts, based as they are on the revenue record that the respondents are in settled possession as tenants, are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. In the face of the findings that the respondents are in settled possession as tenants on the land, questions No. (ii) and (iii) do not arise. Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 04, 2010 sunita