R.S.A. No. 1922 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1922 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.2.2009 Madan Gopal ....Appellant Versus National Textile Corporation Ltd., Kharar ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Harnaresh Singh Gill, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 26.10.2005 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 4.2.2006. The plaintiff/appellant initiated a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent alleging that he was in possession of the suit property and that he had been put as a tenant by one Shiv Kumar Gupta, who was the authorised person and Chairman of the Punipat Woolen and General Mills Ltd., Kharar, the predecessor before its take over by the present defendant i.e. National Textile Corporation Ltd. The respondent contested the suit and contended that Shiv Kumar Gupta was never the Chairman of the Panipat Woolen and R.S.A. No. 1922 of 2006 (O&M) -2- General Mills Ltd., Kharar and that the property was in their possession as co-sharer along with some other shareholders. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 2. Relief. After appraisal of the evidence it was concluded by the Courts below that the appellant has failed to prove his possession on the suit property. It was also held that the appellant has also failed to prove that Shiv Kumar Gupta was the Chairman of the Panipat Woolen and General Mills Ltd. and that he was authorised to create a lease in his favour. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and warrant interference, as he was in continuous possession of the suit property having been put up as a tenant by Shiv Kumar Gupta and that the defendant/respondent are not the owners of the suit property. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is totally misplaced. It has been observed by the Courts below on the basis of evidence that the suit property is situated in Khasra No.240 (3-11), which is situated in the revenue estate of Kharar, District Ropar and the jamabandi for the year 1972-73 shows Sham Lal son of Walaiti Ram and Panipat Woolen and General Mills Ltd., Kharar as co-sharers. Subsequently, Panipat Woolen and General Mills Ltd. was taken over by National Textile Corporation R.S.A. No. 1922 of 2006 (O&M) -3- Ltd. and the jamabandi for the year 1991-92 recorded the National Textile Corporation Ltd. along with some other persons, namely Shiam Lal, Yashpal, Darbari Lal, Kalyan Dass, Chaman Lal, Ram Lubhaya, Hari Singh and Hans Raj as co-sharers. The appellant is never recorded in possession of the suit property. The crucial question is that he is claiming possession on the basis of a tenancy which was created by Shiv Kumar Gupta, allegedly the Chairman of the Panipat Woolen and General Mills Ltd., Kharar, but no such evidence has been produced that Shiv Kumar Gupta ever remained the Chairman of the said Mills and that he was authorised to create a lease deed. In view of the fact that concurrent and consistent findings of fact have been recorded by the Courts below that the appellant was not recorded in possession of the suit property in the revenue record and also that Shiv Kumar Gupta was never proved to be an authorised person to create any tenancy in favour of the appellant, the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be termed to be perverse. No substantial question of law arises for the consideration of the Court. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 5.2.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss