RSA No.1378 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH REGULAR SECOND APPEALNo.1378 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 11 th MAY, 2011 Sultan & another .... Appellants Versus Mahabir & others .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Jai Singh Yadav, Advocate for the appellants. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM No.4092-C of 2010: Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal: Defendants No.1 and 2 Sultan and Bishamber Dayal having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below have filed the instant second appeal. Respondents No.1 to 4/plaintiffs filed suit against appellants (defendants No.1 and 2) and Parhadi defendant No.3 (since deceased and represented by respondents No.5 to 9) and against Om Parkash, Ram Mehar, Rohtash and Satbir defendants No.4 to 7 (not party to the instant second appeal) alleging that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. Prior to them, their father Muni Lal was in possession thereof whereas Har Narain was recorded to be owner of the suit land. Har Narain has not been heard of for RSA No.1378 of 2010 -2- 25/30 years since prior to the filing of the suit. However, plaintiffs continued to be in possession of the suit land. Defendants threatened to oust the plaintiffs forcibly from the suit land without due course of law. Accordingly plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in possession of plaintiffs over the suit land measuring 8 Kanals 16 Marlas. Only defendants No.1 to 3 contested the suit, whereas remaining defendants were proceeded ex parte. Defendants No.1 to 3 pleaded that vide judgment dated 08.02.1980 passed in the Civil Suit No.420 of 1978 titled as Siri Chand Versus Chhajju, even father of the plaintiffs, who was also party to the said suit, was held to be legal heir of Har Narain. It was alleged that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Har Narain and plaintiffs' father. Even if it was there, it came to an end when plaintiffs' father became cosharer in the suit land. It was denied that plaintiffs' father was cultivating the suit land in any capacity. It was alleged that plaintiffs are cultivating the suit land as cosharers and answering defendants are also cultivating the suit land to the extent of their share. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuh vide judgment and decree dated 24.04.2009 decreed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by defendants No.1 and 2 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Nuh vide judgment and decree dated 31.08.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendants No.1 and 2 have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. RSA No.1378 of 2010 -3- In Jamabandis for 1966-67 (Exhibit P-1), 1971-72 (Exhibit P-2), 1991-92 (Exhibit P-3), 1996-97 (Exhibit P-4) and 1986-87 (Exhibit P-10), plaintiffs' father Muni Lal was recorded to be tenant in possession of the suit land under owner Har Narain. Same entry was repeated in Khasra Girdawari Exhibit P-5. Muni Lal has since died and plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. Aforesaid consistent entries in the revenue record spreading over three decades prior to the filing of the suit make it crystal clear that plaintiffs' father Muni Lal was tenant in possession. Presumption of correctness attaches to entries in Jamabandis. The said presumption gets reinforced and strengthened if the same entries are repeated over a long period as in the instant case. The said presumption has not been rebutted by the defendants in any manner. There is only bald and oral self-serving statement of Bishamber Dayal defendant No.2 which is not sufficient to rebut the aforesaid documentary evidence depicting possession of the plaintiffs and their predecessor over the suit land. In the instant suit, plaintiffs have claimed only permanent injunction on the basis of their possession. Question of title is not to be adjudicated upon. Plaintiffs are established to be in possession of the suit land since the time of their father. Consequently their suit has been rightly decreed by the courts below. Concurrent finding recorded by the lower courts in favour of the plaintiffs regarding their possession over the suit land is fully justified by the documentary evidence on record and the said finding is thus not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence so as to warrant interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently referred to judgment RSA No.1378 of 2010 -4- and decree dated 08.02.1980, whereby defendant No.3 and fathers of defendants No.1, 2 and 4 to 7 got redeemed the mortgage of the suit land, subject to deposit of the mortgage money, but there is no evidence to depict that mortgage money was ever deposited by them. Moreover, the said decree does not in any manner affect the factum of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 11th May, 2011 'raj'