R.S.A No. 1925 of 2010 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 1925 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : May 19, 2010 Gurdial Singh and others, ...... Appellant (s) v. Pritam Singh, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby decreeing the suit of the respondent for possession of the land in dispute. The respondent had filed a suit claiming that as per revenue record, he was the owner and that the appellants had dis-possessed him forcibly two years prior to the filing of the suit. The trial Court accepted that as per three jamabandis, the respondent was the owner but non-suited him on two grounds. Firstly, the respondent had not been able to show the source of his title, and secondly since as per the khasra girdawaris, the R.S.A No. 1925 of 2010 (O&M) ::2:: respondent was shown to be in possession, the suit for possession could not have been maintained without challenging the revenue entries. The lower appellate Court in appeal held that once the respondent had discharged the initial burden of proof of ownership by placing reliance on the jamabandis, then burden shifted to the appellants to prove their plea that they were in possession by way of oral partition. On fact, the lower appellate Court held that the appellants were not able to prove any oral partition. As regards maintainability of the suit, the lower appellate Court held that once the respondent had admitted that the appellants had forcibly dis-possessed him, it could not be held that he could only file a suit for mandatory injunction on the basis of entries in his favour. Further, the lower appellate Court held that it was not incumbent upon the respondent to challenge the revenue entries. The following questions have been proposed :- “ (i) Whether the learned lower appellate Court has passed the perverse judgment ignoring the documentary and oral evidence ? (ii) Whether the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for possession with respect to the suit land was competent and maintainable as he was already in possession of the suit property as per the revenue record ? (iii) Whether the learned lower appellate Court is justified in passing the decree for possession in favour of the respondent-plaintiff who is already in possession as per the revenue record ? R.S.A No. 1925 of 2010 (O&M) ::3:: (iv) Whether the parties to the suit land are in possession of the land as per the oral family settlement arrived at between their forefather since long and no partition has taken place between the parties with respect to the property ?” It would be seen that questions No. (i) and (iv) are pure questions of fact. Counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. As regards questions No. (ii) and (iii), counsel for the appellants has not shown to me any precedent which would suggest that in a case where a person complains of being forcibly dis-possessed even though his name continues to be in the revenue record as in possession, a suit for possession would not lie without challenging the revenue entries. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellants, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 19, 2010. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 1925 of 2010 (O&M) ::4::