IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.4073 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.5.2009 Bhajan Singh and another. ....... Appellants through Shri I.S.Brar, Advocate. Versus Iqbal Singh. ....... Respondent through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 16.10.2006 and 21.8.2008 passed respectively by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muktsar (hereinafter referred to as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Muktsar (described hereinafter as `the First Appellate Court') whereby the suit of the plaintiff- respondent has been decreed and the appeal of the defendants-appellants has been dismissed. The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the appellants from interfering in his peaceful possession or from dispossessing him from the suit land fully described in the head note of the R.S.A.No.4073 of 2008 (O&M) -2- .... plaint. It was pleaded that the father of the respondent was owner in possession of the suit land measuring 1 kanal 4 marlas which was purchased by him vide writing dated 20.11.1963 from Bahal Singh son of Anoopa Singh, resident of village Jandoke. It was further pleaded that the suit land was situated within the Lal Lakir upon which the respondent had raised construction and had also planted trees and that the appellants are interfering in his possession as he has become owner thereof after the death of his father. Upon notice, the appellants appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit. It was denied that the suit land was situated within the Lal Lakir of the village. It was pleaded that the suit land was placed in the revenue record and was part of khewat nos. 207 and 232, khasra nos. 184, 183, 185 and 187 as per jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 and that the appellants were in possession of the same as co-sharers. The writing dated 20.11.1963 was also assailed to say that it was not admissible in evidence of its being unregistered. The site plan attached with the suit was also disputed. The factum of construction having been raised by the appellant on the suit land and plantation of trees was also denied. It was also pleaded that the suit land has wrongly been described. A number of other preliminary objections were taken and the dismissal of the suit was prayed. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the property in question is situated outside the red R.S.A.No.4073 of 2008 (O&M) -3- .... line of the village and the same has been recorded as land?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not given the proper description of the property?OPD 5. Whether the writing dated 20.11.1963 is not admissible in evidence?OPD 6. Whether the site plan is wrong and incorrect?OPD 7. Relief. After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court concluded that the plea of the appellants that the suit land was not situated within the Lal Lakir of the village and that it was having revenue record in the shape of khasra numbers etc. was not proved. It, therefore, decreed the suit of the respondent by holding him in possession of the suit land. In appeal, the findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and erroneous and, therefore, the same are liable to be set aside. He further contended that the revenue record shows that the suit land is not within the Lal Lakir as alleged by the respondent and rather, it bears the khasra numbers which can be seen from the jamabandis of the village. R.S.A.No.4073 of 2008 (O&M) -4- .... I have thoughtfully considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the impugned judgments. The appellants have referred to some jamabandis,but they were unable to show that the land in dispute is the same which is recorded therein. In this view of the matter, there is hardly any evidence on the basis of which their plea can be accepted. In the impugned judgments, it has rightly been noticed that it was the appellants who had raised the plea that the suit land was situated outside the Lal Lakir and was not the ownership of the respondent. Both these pleas were not substantiated by any evidence on record. In any eventuality, it was a suit for permanent injunction and only possession over the suit land had to be determined to grant the relief of injunction to the respondent. Both the Courts below have concluded unhesitatingly that the respondent was in possession of the suit land which is purely a question of fact. The appellants have also not been able to show anything to the contrary. The law points as formulated by the learned counsel for the appellants in the grounds of appeal and which are reproduced below cannot be treated to be substantial questions of law having arisen in this appeal for determination because only question of fact has been determined by the Courts below:- 1. Whether suit of the plaintiff/respondent can be decreed when there is no cogent evidence regarding the description of the property? 2. Whether a correct finding can be arrived at without framing R.S.A.No.4073 of 2008 (O&M) -5- .... of proper issues? Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. May 14,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge