1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1225 of 2008 (O&M). Date of Decision: 3.2.2009 *** Darshan Singh .. Appellant VS. Nihal Singh (deceased) through is LRs. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Gulshan Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Nihal Singh (since deceased), the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents got instituted a suit against the appellant seeking permanent injunction restraining him from interfering in his lawful possession over the suit land. It was his case that he is a tenant over the suit property on payment of 1/3rd Batai and as such he sought protection of his forcible dispossession therefrom. On the other hand the stand of the appellant-defendant was that he is the true owner of the property in dispute and as such no injunction can be granted against him and even otherwise while relying upon the Rapat No. 54 dated 12.10.1998 the possession of the suit property has already been delivered in his favour and hence no question of dispossession of the plaintiff arises. After analysing the oral testimonies of plaintiff and his witness i.e. Angrej Singh (PW1) as well as documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff in the shape of revenue record, both the Courts below concurrently held the plaintiff in possession over the suit land as gair marusi tenant and he can only be evicted therefrom in due course of law. The observations made by the learned appellate court below, while affirming the findings of the learned trial court in para No.10 of the judgment are relevant, which 2 read thus:- “10. I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the Ld. Lower Court. Nihal Singh plaintiff was recorded in cultivating possession as Gair Marusi as per copy of Jamabandi for the year 1992-93 Exh.P1. Nihal Singh does not claim ownership of the property in dispute. He has only sought protection from the court from his forcible dispossession. The evidence on record has been duly appreciated by the learned lower court. Rapat No.54 dated 12.10.1998 Exh.D3 did not bear the signatures of Nihal Singh plaintiff who was likely to be affected by any such delivery of possession of the suit property. No weightage can be given to such an entry in the Roznamcha. Halqa Kanungo who delivered the possession on the spot as per rapat Exh.D3 was not examined by the appellant/ defendant in support of his case. Possession from Nihal Singh could only be taken in due course of law as he was a tenant over the same. Learned lower court has rightly concluded under issue nos.1 and 2 that the respondent/ plaintiff was in actual physical possession over the suit land and was entitled to the injunction as prayed for. The plaintiff was a tenant and not merely tres-passer over the suit land. The relief granted by the Learned Lower Court vide impugned judgment and decree is perfectly as per the provisions of law and evidence on record. ... ” Thus, in the light of above-said findings, it cannot be said that the approach of the Courts below while granting the sought relief to the plaintiff is either illegal, perverse or based on no evidence. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view. No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE February 3,2009 Jiten