RSA No. 279 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 279 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.02.2011. Phapha Kaur and others .......Appellants Vs. Dharam Pal ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. P.K.Ganga, Advocate for the appellants. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that the suit land was owned by Harizan Cooperative Society, Jhanda Khurd. Shan was a co-sharer in the suit land. Plaintiff was cultivating the suit land as a tenant under the co-sharer Shan. Shan was in need of money and he had mortgaged the suit land in favour of plaintiff for a consideration of ` 2,10,000/-. An agreement qua mortgage of the suit land was executed between the plaintiff and Shan. A Pronote and receipt were also executed by Shan qua ` 2,10,000/- on 27.6.1997. After the death of Shan, plaintiff became tenant under the defendants. The defendants were threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land forcibly. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction was filed. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that RSA No. 279 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Shan was in possession of the suit land as a co-sharer. Plaintiff had never been given the possession of the suit land and wanted to take benefit of wrong entries in the revenue record. The writing regarding mortgage dated 27.6.1997 and pronote and receipt were forged and fabricated documents. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction ? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.2008, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and restrained the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land, forcibly and illegally, except in due course of law. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the District Judge, Mansa vide judgment and decree dated 3.6.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The suit land bears Khasra No. 30//23(8-0), 46//2 (7-11V), 3(7-11), 4/2(4-0), 5/2(1-8). A perusal of the copy of the jamabandi for the year 2000-01(Ex. P-1), shown during the course of arguments, reveals that the suit property measuring 28 Kanals 10 Marlas is owned by Harizan Cooperative Society and in the column of cultivation, plaintiff has been described in possession of the suit land through co-sharer Shan. Same are RSA No. 279 of 2010 (O&M) -3- the entries in the copy of Khasra Girdawri from the year 2001-02 to 2004-05 (Ex. P-2). Thus, the plaintiff had been successful in establishing that he was in possession of the suit land through Shan, co-sharer. Since, the plaintiff had been successful in establishing his possession over the suit land, the courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 17, 2011 Gurpreet