-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 5154 of 2010 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 25, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 5154 of 2010 (O&M). Shri Om and others ... Appellants VERSUS Mange Ram and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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: Mr. Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate, for the appellants. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Plaintiffs-appellants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby their suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the land in dispute was dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs- appellants and have gone through the impugned judgments. -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 5154 of 2010 (O&M). The plaintiffs-appellants claimed themselves to be owners in possession of the land in dispute. However, the defendants-respondents did not admit this claim of the plaintiffs- appellants. The trial Court, after framing issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and recording their evidence dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are the findings of fact. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. The plaintiffs alleged that since the year 1959 when the consolidation proceedings took place, they became owners in possession of the land in dispute. They (plaintiffs-appellants) placed on record copies of Jamabandis, which are Exhibits P.1 to P.9. No doubt, in these documents Exhibits P.1 to P.9, in the column of cultivation, the names of the ancestors of the plaintiffs and thereafter the names of the plaintiffs have been mentioned, but in the column of ownership the names of the defendants and their ancestor Gugan Singh have been mentioned. As such, the claim of the plaintiffs-appellants qua ownership of the land in dispute is not supported by the Jamabandis Exhibits P.1 to P.9 produced by them on record. These documents were prepared by the revenue officials within a span of 40 years and -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 5154 of 2010 (O&M). the plaintiffs did not bother to challenge the same before the competent authorities. Neither the genuineness of Jamabandis Exhibits P.1 to P.9 can be challenged, nor the plaintiffs have been able to challenge the correctness of the same by bringing forth any material on record. In fact, the silence of the plaintiffs for such a long period to challenge the correctness of Jamabandis Exhibits P.1 to P.9 leads to the only conclusion that they (plaintiffs) have admitted the defendants to be owners of the land in dispute. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 25, 2011. JUDGE ak