IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.309 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 29th July, 2011 Mehar Singh and others … Appellants Versus Raghbir Parshad and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Rajender Singh Malik, Advocate for the appellants. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present regular second appeal has been filed by defendants to the suit. Respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in actual physical possession of the suit property measuring 3 Kanals 2 Marlas, details and description whereof were given in the plaint, on the basis of sale deed dated 27th May, 1974. They further sought injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere in their peaceful ownership and possession over the suit property. It was pleaded by the respondents-plaintiffs that they had purchased the suit land vide a registered sale deed dated 27th May, 1974 from the present appellant No.1-Mehar Singh and his mother Sarbati widow of Jage Ram. Mr. Rajender Singh Malik, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants-defendants, has stated that the execution of the sale Regular Second Appeal No.309 of 2010 (O&M) deed had not been denied by the appellants-defendants, however, they had raised following two pleas: 1. That due to a typographical error in the sale deed, more area has been reflected than the share of Mehar Singh and his mother Sarbati; and 2. That in pursuance of the sale deed, no possession was handed over; therefore, the appellant-defendant Mehar Singh along with his mother Sarbati continued to be in possession of the suit property and hence, after execution of the sale deed they have become owners of the property because of adverse possession. Both of these pleas have been negated by the courts below. Mehar Singh, one of the executants of the sale deed, had only appeared in examination in-chief and had not stepped into the witness box to facilitate cross-examination. The trial Court relying upon the sale deed and the evidence led by the respondents-plaintiffs, held that the mutation and the revenue entries are not in consonance with the sale deed Ex.P1 dated 27th May, 1974, hence they were held to be null and void. The Court found the respondents-plaintiffs to be in possession of the property and therefore, directed the revenue authorities to make necessary correction in the record. The findings given by the trial Court have been affirmed by the lower appellate Court. 2 Regular Second Appeal No.309 of 2010 (O&M) Mr.Malik has further stated that the entries made in the revenue record prove that the appellants-defendants are in possession of the property in dispute; therefore, they have become owners of the same because of the adverse possession. Whereas, the courts below have held that the factum of sale deed was not noticed by the revenue authorities, therefore, the subsequent entries were not correct. Merely because there is an entry in the revenue record, seller of the property will not become owner of the same because of adverse possession. Both the courts below have relied upon the testimony of the witnesses examined by the respondents-plaintiffs to hold that they are in possession of the property. No point of law, much less a substantial one, arises for consideration of this Court. Hence, no interference is warranted and the present appeal is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 29, 2011 rps 3