Civil Revision No.528 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-26.7.2010 Kulbir Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Rajinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Gagandep Singh Sir Phikhi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.A.D.S.Ghuman, Advocate for the respondents. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . The epitome of facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of present petition and emanating from the record, is that application for ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC, filed by petitioner-plaintiffs Kulbir Singh and others (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiffs”) in a suit for declaration/permanent injunction restraining respondent-defendants Rajinder Singh and others (hereinafter to be referred as “the defendants“) from interfering in their possession, was dismissed by the trial Court, vide impugned order dated 4.9.2006 (Annexure P1). 2. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the first appellate Court, vide impugned order dated 8.8.2008 (Annexure P2). 3. The petitioner-plaintiffs still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders (Annexures P1 and P2) of the Courts below and filed the present revision petition. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, after going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to my Civil Revision No.528 of 2009 2 mind, there is no merit in the revision petition. 5. However, the main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiffs that since Kartar Singh, father of the respondent-defendants, was shown in possession of the suit land in the khasra girdawari without any basis/order of competent authority, so, they (defendants) cannot claim possession over the same after his death, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 6. As is evident from the record, the plaintiffs have claimed their ownership and possession over the property in dispute on the basis of sale deed dated 12.5.1999 executed in their favour by Dharam Singh and Kuljit Singh etc. On the contrary, the defendants have denied their ownership and possession. Concisely, they claimed that their father Kartar Singh was in possession over the suit land as tenant and after his death, they are in possession over the same as such (tenants). 7. It is not a matter of dispute that defendant No.1 filed civil suit No.33 dated 20.12.1996 for permanent injunction, much prior to the sale deed, against Kuljit Singh, the vendor of the plaintiffs, which was dismissed by the trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 15.12.1998. Defendant No.1 filed civil appeal No.14 of 1999, which was accepted by the Ist Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 25.4.2000 and it was held that Kartar Singh, father of the defendants, was in possession over the suit land as tenant and after his death, they (defendants) are in possession as tenants. Therefore, once the defendants have been held to be in possession over the suit land as tenants, vide judgment and decree dated 25.4.2000, then, prima facie, it cannot possibly be saith that they are not in possession as such, as urged on behalf of the plaintiffs. 8. There is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. The Courts below have recorded a finding of fact based on the material on record that the defendants are proved to be in possession over the disputed property. There is no evidence on the file to suggest that after 25.4.2000 Civil Revision No.528 of 2009 3 Rajinder Singh defendant ever delivered possession to the plaintiffs or their vendors or the defendants have been duly ejected by competent Court. Such pure findings of fact cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, unless and until the same are perverse and illegal. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out, in the impugned orders of the Courts below, by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, so as to set aside the same in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. In the light of the aforementioned reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the trial, as there is no merit, therefore, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. However, it is made clear that nothing recorded herein above would reflect on the merits of the case, in any manner, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 26.7.2010 Judge AS