R.S.A. No. 155 of 2008 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 155 of 2008 Date of decision: September 23, 2008 Siri Ram ..Appellant v. Murti Shri Shiv Shankar Bhagwan and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Defendant No.4 is in appeal before this Court against the judgment and decree of the learned Court below, whereby that of the trial Court was upheld. Briefly, the facts are that suit for permanent injunction was filed by respondent No.1- plaintiff seeking injunction against the appellant- defendant No.4 and other respondents restraining them from interfering in possession over the land measuring 12 bighas 1 biswa situated in the revenue estate of Narnaul. Further restraint was sought from interfering in the user of Tibara, Piau, Chabutra etc. which were in existence in the property. On the basis of the material produced by respondent No.1 on record in the form of jamabandis, the trial Court found that the same clearly depicted that respondent No.1-plaintiff was shown to be owner in possession of the property in question. As against that, it was merely oral evidence led by the appellant-defendant to claim possession over the property. The claim set up by the appellant-defendant that in fact, Tibara, Piau and Chabutra had been constructed by his late father could not be proved by leading any cogent evidence as the documentary evidence led by respondent No.1-plaintiff belied the oral stand of the appellant-defendant. Even if some small constructions were raised by the father of the appellant- defendant on the land of respondent No.1-plaintiff, the same will not transfer the ownership of the land in favour of the appellant-defendant. R.S.A. No. 155 of 2008 [ 2] The findings recorded by the trial Court were upheld by the learned Court below. Even before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant had not been able to refer to any evidence which could lead to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are perverse or there is any misreading or non-reading of material on record. Without there being any stand in the written statement, the appellant- defendant produced one Siri Ram to state that earlier Ram Chander was inducted as tenant by the forefathers of the appellant-defendant. Neither Ram Chander nor any document was produced to prove this fact. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are plain and simple findings of fact giving rise to no question of law, much less a substantial question of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 23.9.2008 mk