RSA No.3373 of 2007 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. R.S.A.No. 3373 of 2007 Decided on 24.10.2008 Mohinder --Appellant vs. Jai Pal and others -- Respondents. Present: Mr.V.B.Aggarwal,Advocate,for the appellant Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: This appeal has been filed by one of the defendants against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction was decreed and the defendants were restrained from interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land forcibly and illegally. The case of the plaintiffs is that they had purchased the land measuring 8 kanals comprised in khewat No.8/9, Khatoni No.19, Rectangle No.46, Killa No. 14 from defendant No.1 vide registered sale deed dated 5.1.2001, situated at village Sunarian, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra and on the basis of sale deed, mutation No.992 was entered and sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs had also purchased the land measuring 1 kanal 7 marla comprised in Khewat No.8, Khatoni No.19, Rec. No.46, Khasra No 7/2 situated at village Sunarian, District Kurukshetra RSA No.3373 of 2007 2 from Mohinder Singh defendant No.1. vide registered sale deed dated 07.9.2001 on the basis of which mutation No. 1003 was entered and sanctioned in their favour. It is further alleged by the plaintiffs that on the basis of sale deed, defendant No.1. delivered the possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs and since then they are continuing in possession as owners and their names have been duly entered in the khasra girdawari. It is alleged that at the time of filing of the suit, there were crops standing on the land in dispute but the defendants in collusion with each other are bent upon dispossessing the plaintiffs forcibly and illegally and they had actually come to the spot for the purpose of cutting and removing the crops but due to their resentment, the defendants could not succeed. Written statement was filed by defendant Nos.1,4 and 5 which was adopted by defendant Nos 2 and 3. In the written statement, preliminary objection was taken that the plaintiffs had concealed the material facts from the Court regarding filing of the complaint dated 13.4.2002 in which the police after investigating the matter, found Maya Ram defendant in possession of the suit land. In the Calendra under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. the plaintiffs had admitted the possession of Maya Ram over the suit land. The plaintiffs had also admitted the possession of the answering defendants, especially Maya Ram defendant in case FIR No.73 dated 06.7.2002 registered under Sections 447,148,149 and 506 of IPC. The sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs were challenged as a result of forgery and fabrication and it was claimed that since the land of the defendants are on all the four sides, therefore, the question of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land never arose as there was neither any rasta to approach the suit land nor any source of water for the purpose of irrigation. RSA No.3373 of 2007 3 The core issue in this case was as to whether, the plaintiffs are owners in possession over the suit land as alleged. Both the Courts below have returned a concurrent finding of fact. The first Appellate Court observed as under:- “The case of appellant-defendant that the two aforesaid sale- deeds were the result of fraud and mis-representation on the part of respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs qua Mohinder, appellant and for the same a suit for declaration, earlier in the name to the suit involving instant appeal pending, is not born out from the record. Plaintiffs have produced on record a copy of judgment dated 30.3.2006 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra in Civil Suit No.78 of 2002/2003 titled Kamal Singh and Tarsem Kumar sons of Maya Ram vs. Jai Pal Singh, Hakam Singh sons of Mohan Lal and Maya Ram son of Puran for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, whereby claimed ownership and possession of Maya Ram (father of said Kamal Singh and Tarsem Kumar plaintiffs in that suit) over other land measuring 7 kanals, sold by him to plaintiffs herein vide sale deed 17.11.2000 was not believed. Meaningful to mention that said Maya Ram, respondent No.4/ defendant No.3 is a real brother of Mohinder, appellant/defendant No.1 as well as Karam Singh,respondent No3/defendant No.2. Previously, suit land was in exclusive ownership and possession of appellant. Regarding alleged plea for continuous physical possession of Maya Ram over the suit land, though a copy of Khasra Girdawari Ex. D-2 since the crop kharif, 2005 has been adduced on record, revealing mention of sale of suit land in favour of plaintiffs, yet the same cannot be looked into in the wake of above referred khasra Girdawari entries in favour of the plaintiffs, as depicted in Exs.P-4 RSA No.3373 of 2007 4 and P-5. Further, plea of learned counsel for appellant-defendant that abrupt change of khasra girdawari entrties since crop kharif, 2005,vide Ex.D-2 without prior notice to Mohinder, appellant is against law, is not acceptable as after incorporation of names of plaintiffs in Khasra Girdawari entries as per Exs. P-4 and P-5, no application for correction of those Khasra Girdawari entries was ever brought by Mohinder, appellant- defendant. Though in support of the raised pleas, reliance has been placed by learned counsel for appellant on the observations held in Harji and another v. Smadh Baba Vijay Ram Chela Mangal Dass, 2003 (2) RCR (Civil) 666 (P&H) and Samma Singh vs. Thakar Singh, 1997 (1) RCR (Civil) 299 (P&H), yet the proposition of law made thereunder is not disputed at this stage but the same cannot be made favourably applicable because of peculiar nature of facts involved in the present case. In Harji and another's case (supra), it was held that change of revenue entries cannot be made without prior notice to the person likely to be affected and in Samma Singh's case (supra), it was held that if the correctness of some entries of Khasra Girdawaris are under consideration before the Civil Court, correction made by Revenue Authorities would be irrelevant. Correctness thereof has to be determined by the Civil Court independently on the evidence before it. It is mention worthy that no such like issue is involved in the facts of the present case. We should not overlook the fact that by virtue of two registered sale-deeds Exs.P-6 and P-7 prima facie plaintiffs were given physical possession of the suit land by Mohinder, appellant-defendant”. Mr.V.B.Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant RSA No.3373 of 2007 5 has failed to point out any illegality in the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below nor could he raise any question of law much-less substantial involved in this appeal. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. October 24,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge