1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 907 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.3.2009 *** Rameshwar & Ors. .. Appellants VS. State of Haryana through Collector, Hisar & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. R.N. Singhal, Advocate for the appellants. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is plaintiff's regular second appeal who since been non- suited by the Courts below has preferred to approach this Court to lay challenge to the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the paper book carefully. The plaintiffs filed a suit and sought restraint order against the defendants from interfering in their possession over the suit land. It was their case that they are cultivating the suit land as Gair Marusi tenant since the time of their forefathers and at present they are in possession of the same and hence become owners thereof in view of letter Ex.PXI. On the other the stand of defendants No.1 and 2 was that earlier the suit property was in possession of father of the plaintiffs, who was ordered to be ejected therefrom by virtue of order dated 29.7.1970 passed by SDM, Hisar exercising the powers of Collector and pursuant thereto the possession was reverted back and lateron handed over to defendant No.3 on 2 lease as a licensee and the plaintiffs are not in possession of the same. It emerges out from the records that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the suit land rather on the basis of over- whelming evidence produced on record by the defendants in the shape of revenue entries Ex.D2 and Ex.D3, eviction order dated 29.7.1970 (Ex.DW2/B) and handing over of possession to defendant No.3 vide Ex.DW2/C, it has been held that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was taken from the father of the plaintiffs and delivered to defendant No.3 and by dint of order dated 29.7.1970 the tenancy had come to an end and as such the plaintiff cannot be held entitled to the relief of declaration of their title of in respect of the suit property. The contention, on the strength of Dera Baba Laturian & Anr. Vs. The State of Punjab 1990 PLJ 291, that the photocopy of eviction order is not admissible in evidence and hence could not have been relied upon, is without merit. When the said document was exhibited, the original was produced by DW.2 Vijay Kumar, as reflected from para No.12 of the judgment of the appellate court and at that time also no objection as to the admissibility of the said document was raised and thus, in the light of other evidence produced on record, as referred to above, the same was rightly taken into consideration to conclude that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land. I do not find any question of law which require determination by this Court, in the instant appeal. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. No interference is called for. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE March 17,2009 Jiten