RSA No.4110 of 2010 (O&M) -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4110 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:01.11.2010. Pritam Singh ...Appellant Versus Harbans Singh ...Respondents CORAM: HON’B LE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The defendant is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below by which suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction has been decreed. The plaintiff filed the suit in respect of land measuring 33 Kanals 17 Marlas bearing Khewat No.389, Khatauni No.423, 423/1, Khasra No.92//19, 20, 22, 118/1, situated in village Bhirdana, Tehsil and District Fatehabad, in which he has alleged that the defendant is trying to disturb his possession. It was alleged that earlier also, the plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit in the year 2001, but it had to be withdrawn in view of an assurance given by the defendant before the Panchayat, but still the defendant is indulging in his illegal activities of dispossessing the plaintiff, hence, the present suit. In the written statement, the defendant alleged that he is tenant over Khasra No.92/19 (7-7) and 20 (7-7), total measuring 14 Kanals 14 Marlas. It is averred that his father had purchased suit land in the name of plaintiff from the income of the joint Hindu Family because at that time plaintiff was 12 years of age. Initially, the plaintiff had agreed RSA No.4110 of 2010 (O&M) -2- **** for a family settlement in order to get the suit land mutated in the name of defendant No.1 also but subsequently he became dishonest and refused to honour his settlement. The learned Trial Court did not give any finding about ownership and had confined its finding with regard to possession. It was held that the plaintiff is in possession as per jamabandi Ex.P1 of the year 2004 which is not repudiated by the defendant, therefore, in view of Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, the said jamabandi had the presumption of truth attached to the entries incorporated in it. It was also held that defendant No.1 has miserably failed to prove his tenancy rights over the property in dispute even on Khasra No.92//19 and 20 as alleged, therefore, after finding the possession of the plaintiff, both the Courts below have decided the suit in his favour and restrained the defendant from interfering in his possession. Although the defendant has come in appeal, but learned counsel appearing on his behalf could not raise any substantial question of law except for arguing that the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata. I am afraid that this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted because in a suit for injunction there is no question of any res judicata when the earlier suit was withdrawn on the assurance given by the defendant before the Panchayat for not disturbing possession of the plaintiff. In view of the finding of fact recorded by the learned Courts below, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and hence, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. November 01, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE