RSA No.2949 of 2011 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2949 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: July 25, 2011. Jagdish Ram ... Appellant(s) v. Ramji Dass & Ors. ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): This regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff to the suit. He has sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner in the suit land. It was further prayed that they be restrained from cutting and removing the trees standing in the suit land. In the plaint it was pleaded that Siama @ Sarma, father of the plaintiff, and his uncle were in possession of the suit land and they were enjoying continuous peaceful possession. Siama alias Sarma, father of the plaintiff, expired about 30 years ago and thereafter in the revenue record, name of the father of the plaintiff and his uncle were reflected. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff has been paying land revenue qua suit land and the defendants being headstrong persons had threatened to dispossess him from the suit property forcibly. Upon notice, defendants caused appearance and filed their RSA No.2949 of 2011 -: 2 :- written statement. They denied possession of the plaintiff over the suit property bearing khasra No.3208, rather they asserted their possession over the suit property. They further pleaded that the name of the father of the plaintiff was recorded in the revenue record inadvertently. After conclusion of the pleadings, the trial court had drawn the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is not in possession of suit property? OPD 3. Relief. Plaintiff himself examined as PW1, Jit Ram as PW2, Gulzari Lal as PW3 and Ram Pal as PW4. Ramji Dass defendant appeared as DW1. The trial court relied upon revenue record , Jamabandi Ex.P1 and P3 and khasra girdawari Ex.P2 to hold that in the revenue record, name of the plaintiff's father is recorded, therefore, decreed the suit and restrained the defendants from causing interference in the possession of the plaintiff. The trial court further held that any admission made by the plaintiff in his testimony is not to be construed as a conclusive proof of possession. Aggrieved against the same, defendants filed an appeal. The lower appellate court discussed the evidence threadbare and after analyzing the same came to the conclusion that Jagdish Ram – plaintiff PW1 has stated that dispute with the defendant was with regard to khasra No.3208 only and there was no dispute regarding other khasra numbers. Plaintiff further stated that one year ago, defendants, after cutting the trees, had removed the same from khasra No.3208. The court held that so far as the injunction sought that the defendants be restrained from cutting the trees is RSA No.2949 of 2011 -: 3 :- concerned, same has been rendered infructuous. The court further relied upon the testimony of PW4 Ram Pal, who stated that khasra No.3208 qua which the dispute pertains, is in the possession of the defendants for the last 50 years. Another witness examined by Jasgdish Ram was PW2 Jit Ram. He also deposed that dispute is regarding khasra No.3208 and it does not pertain to other khasra numbers. Gulzari Lal, witness examined by the plaintiff as PW3 also stated that the defendants are in possession of the suit property for the last 50 years. The court further held that admission of three witnesses of the plaintiff conclusively proves that dispute was only qua khasra No.3208 and as per the testimony of the witnesses, defendants were in possession of the same. The court further considered the testimony of Ram Pal PW4 and held that Ram Pal has also demolished the case of the plaintiff by stating that since August 2008, defendants had taken forcible possession and thereafter they have refused to vacate the same. The court held that as per Ramji Dass, he was in possession of the suit land and nothing has been done to retrieve the possession, therefore, relief of permanent injunction cannot be granted. The court further held that ownership of the Gram Panchayat over khasra No.3208 and 3213 is disputed. Shri Rai Singh Chauhan, Counsel appearing for the appellant, has stated that the lower appellate court has conveniently ignored discrepancies in the testimony of DW1 – defendant Ramji Dass and furthermore, in the revenue record, plaintiff is recorded as a cultivator. Counsel states that this part of the evidence should have been given due credence by the lower appellate court. This Court in regular second appeal shall refrain to tread on the RSA No.2949 of 2011 -: 4 :- path of re-appreciate and do re-appraisal of the evidence. The view formed by the lower appellate court is the one which is possible upon appreciation of the evidence. The lower appellate court was fully justified in giving preference to the plaintiff's evidence and ignoring certain discrepancies in the evidence of DW1 Ramji Dass. The findings returned by the lower appellate court can in no way be termed perverse. Hence, no interference is warranted, especially when no point of law, much less the substantial, has been canvassed before me. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed in limine. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] July 25, 2011. Judge kadyan