RSA No. 1039 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1039 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.03.2011. Ajaib Singh and others .......Appellants Vs. Amrik Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. K.K.Garg, Advocate for the appellants. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession alleging that the defendants had no concern with the suit property. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that Bhan Singh was initially owner of the suit land. Plaintiffs and defendants were the legal heirs of Bhan Singh and mutation qua inheritence of Bhan Singh had been sanctioned in favour of his sons. Plaintiffs in connivance with the revenue officials had got wrong entries incorporated in the revenue record. The defendants along with plaintiffs were co-owners of the suit land. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent RSA No. 1039 of 2011 (O&M) -2- injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi or cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs of Rs. 5000/- under Section 35-A of CPC? OPD 6. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 19.9.2008, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and thereby restrained the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property except in due course of law. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 8.9.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, as per the entries in the Jamabandi for the year 2001-2002, plaintiffs are reflected as co-owners in joint possession of the suit land. However, the names of the defendants are not reflected in the revenue record either in the column of ownership or in the column of cultivation. In these circumstances, both the courts below rightly held that since the RSA No. 1039 of 2011 (O&M) -3- defendants had no concern with the suit land, they could not interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 03, 2011 Gurpreet