R.S.A No. 2646 of 1980 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : February 03, 2010 1. R.S.A No. 2646 of 1980 (O&M) 2. R.S.A No.2647 of 1980 (O&M) Om Parkash and others vs Hari Kishan (dead) through L.Rs & Ors. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. P.K.Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This judgment will dispose of RSA Nos.2646 and 2647 of 1980 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 (Hari Kishan) filed civil suit No. 284 of 1976 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-appellants from dispossessing him forcibly from the suit land. Appellants No.1,4, 7, 8, and 9 also filed a civil suit bearing No.305/76 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents and four others from interfering in their possession over the suit land. Both the suits were disposed of by a common judgment dated 7.10.1978 whereby suit No.284 of 1976 was R.S.A No. 2646 of 1980 (O&M) ::2:: dismissed, whereas suit No.305/76 was decreed. Separate appeals were filed against the judgment of the trial Court, which were allowed by a common judgment dated 19.9.1980 by holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. As regards the possession of respondent No.1, at the end of the judgment the learned lower appellate Court just held that he is in possession of the property, however, without discussing any evidence in this regard. At the time when these appeals were filed no questions of law but counsel for the appellants has proposed the following questions of law :- i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it could be held that the civil Court had no jurisdiction ? ii) Whether the finding that respondent No.1 is in possession returned by the lower appellate Court is completely perverse being based on no evidence ?” In my opinion, these appeals are liable to succeed. In Subedar Munshi Ram and another vs State of Haryana and others, 1979 RLR 521, a Full Bench of this Court held that only a civil suit against the Panchayat in respect of the status of any land as shamlat deh would be barred. In the present case where no relief was sought against the Gram Panchayat it cannot be held that the civil Court had no jurisdiction. Further, as regards question No. (ii), it is not disputed that the appellants have already been held to be owners in civil suit No.401, decided on 13.8.1964 along with the Gram Panchayat. Both the Courts have concurrently found that the respondents were in possession. The trial Court decreed the suit for possession, filed by the respondents, while, as mentioned above, the lower appellate Court dismissed the same. Even though it is correct that the lower appellate Court did not discuss any R.S.A No. 2646 of 1980 (O&M) ::3:: evidence in coming to the conclusion that the respondents were in possession yet the trial Court has discussed the entire evidence to come to this conclusion. Consequently, question No. (ii) has to be held against the appellants. It would be noticed that the finding regarding ownership of the appellants was not disturbed by the lower appellate Court. Counsel for the respondents has not been able to persuade me that this finding is either based on no evidence or is based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. Consequently, these appeals are allowed and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside while that of the trial Court are restored. ( AJAY TEWARI ) February 03, 2010. JUDGE `kk'