RSA No. 2670 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2670 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20-07-2009 Balbir Singh etc. ......Appellants Versus Gurdish .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Shri Rajiv Dev Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed, while dismissing the counter claim filed by the present appellants. As per the plaintiff, he is tenant over the suit property and such possession, as a tenant, is reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1978-79 and Khasra Girdwaris for the years 1982-83 (Exhibit P.4); 1996-97 (Exhibit P.3) and 1997-98 (Exhibit P.5). The plaintiff also appeared as his own witness to support his case that he was a tenant under Harnam Singh, husband of Sarno Devi and father of the present defendant-appellants. The first Appellate Court has considered the jamabandi entry for the year 1977-79 (Exhibit D.5), which shows Sarno Devi to be owner in RSA No. 2670 of 2009 (2) cultivating possession, but it was found that it is a stray entry as in the Jamabandi for the year 1982-83 Exhibit D.1, Sarno Devi is recorded as owner of the suit property, but in the column of cultivation, the plaintiff is reflected as a person in possession. The defendant-appellants have purchased the property in the year 1985, therefore, at the time of purchase of the property by the defendant-appellants, it was the plaintiff, who was recorded as a person in possession. The findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court are sought to be disputed by re-appreciation of evidence. It could not be pointed out that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 20-07-2009 ds