REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.3939 OF 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3939 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 21, 2011 Shankar Lal & others .... Appellants Versus Geeta Ram .... Respondent CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Ravinder Jain, Advocate for the appellants. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Defendants having lost in both the courts below are in second appeal. Plaintiff-respondent Geeta Ram claiming himself to be owner in possession of the suit property along with his brothers, filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiff and his brothers over the suit property. The defendants alleged that they are owner in possession of the suit property and entry in Field Book and Site Plan prepared by Gram Panchayat has been forged and fabricated because plaintiff's brother was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. It was also pleaded that in compromise affected on 15.01.2004 in the Police Station, the plaintiff admitted the defendants to be owners in possession of the suit property and agreed to withdraw the suit. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri vide judgment and decree dated 29.09.2009 decreed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.3939 OF 2010 -2- preferred by defendants stands dismissed by learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar vide judgment and decree dated 20.02.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Plaintiff in order to prove his case has examined Ind Ram PW-1 and Rakesh Kumar PW-2, besides himself appearing in the witness box as PW-3. Field Book of the village property was prepared in the year 1992 along with Site Plan by Gram Panchayat. In the said Field Book, suit property is recorded to be in the possession of plaintiff's father Baisakhi Ram since deceased. After his death, plaintiff and his brothers have inherited it and are owners in possession of the suit property. Ind Ram PW-1 was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat in the year 1992 when Field Book and Site Plan were prepared by Gram Panchayat. He has supported the plaintiff's case. He is a material witness being the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. He is also independent witness. He also deposed that Munadi (proclamation by beat of drum) was also got affected in the village at the time of preparation of Field Book and Site Plan but nobody filed objections against the same. Rakesh Kumar PW-2 is Lambardar of the village. He has also supported the plaintiff's case. He is also independent witness. Ind Ram was Sarpanch at the relevant time. In other words, he held responsible post. Rakesh Kumar PW-2 is Lambardar and therefore, he also holds responsible post. Both of them stood the test of cross-examination. Their statements could not be impeached in cross-examination. Their statements are very credible and inspire confidence. Their statements are further corroborated by documentary evidence in the form of Field Book and Site Plan prepared in the year 1992 i.e. almost twelve years REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.3939 OF 2010 -3- before the filing of the suit. Consequently, plaintiff's case has been rightly held proved. Oral statement of Gurdial Ram DW-1 and Daya Ram defendant No.3 as DW-2 are not sufficient to rebut the cogent oral and documentary evidence led by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that plaintiff's brother being Sarpanch manipulated the entry in Field Book and Site Plan. This contention is completely meritless because Field Book and Site Plan were prepared in the year 1992 when plaintiff's brother was holding no position in the Gram Panchayat. On the other hand, plaintiff's brother remained Sarpanch from the year 2000 to 2005. Consequently plaintiff's brother in that capacity did not have any role to play in the preparation of Field Book and Site Plan, which was prepared years before plaintiff's brother became Sarpanch. Moreover, the said Field Book and Site Plan were never challenged by anybody for twelve years till the filing of the suit. Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the appellants contended that plaintiff affected compromise on 15.01.2004 in the Police Station and agreed to withdraw the suit. This contention also cannot be accepted. Plaintiff filed the instant suit on 09.01.2004. The alleged compromise was affected in police station on 15.01.2004 i.e. after the institution of the suit. The plaintiff has alleged that his signatures on the said compromise were obtained under pressure and threat. The said contention has been rightly upheld by the courts below because there was no occasion for affecting compromise in Police Station when the Civil Suit already instituted by the plaintiff was pending in the Civil Court. If plaintiff had voluntarily entered into compromise, his statement would have been recorded in the Court for withdrawing the suit. There is no reason for not getting recorded the REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.3939 OF 2010 -4- compromise in the Court and for getting it executed in the Police Station. The said compromise has, therefore, been rightly discarded by the courts below. There was also electricity connection in the suit property in the name of plaintiff's father. Certificate Exhibit P-3 to this effect was also produced in evidence. This piece of evidence further strengthens the plaintiff's case. Ind Ram PW-1 also stated in cross-examination that Shankar Lal defendant No.1 had filed case in Revenue Court for correction of Field Book and Site Plan got prepared by Gram Panchayat but the said case stands dismissed. This circumstance also goes against defendants. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that appeal against said order of dismissal is still pending. However, there is nothing on record to substantiate this contention. Moreover, even if this circumstance is ignored, even then plaintiff's case is fully proved. Defendant No.3 admitted in the witness box that Site Plan Exhibit P-2 produced by the plaintiff is correct. This circumstance also goes in favour of the plaintiff. The said Site Plan is copy of the plan prepared by Gram Panchayat depicting the suit property to be of plaintiff's father. The Field Book and the Site Plan were prepared in accordance with Section 22A of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952. The said documents are part of public record. Having remained unchallenged for almost twelve years before the filing of the suit, the said documents carry great probative value. There is concurrent finding recorded by the courts below in favour of plaintiff-respondent. The said finding is fully justified by the overwhelming documentary and oral evidence led by the plaintiff, which is credible. The said finding is also supported by cogent reasons recorded by the REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.3939 OF 2010 -5- courts below. Consequently, the said finding cannot be said to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence so as to call for interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 21st February, 2011 'raj'