IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3532 of 2009 Date of Decision : December 17, 2009 Ajit Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Baldev Singh ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction was decreed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baba Bakala, on 18.3.2008. Aggrieved of the same, the defendants filed the first appeal, which was dismissed by District Judge, Amritsar, on 16.12.2008. They are now before this Court by way of a second appeal filed under Section 100, C.P.C. According to the plaintiff, the land in dispute measuring 31 kanals 16 marlas was originally owned by Teja Singh son of Pal Singh, resident of Baba Bakala and it was being cultivated by the plaintiff's father Gurcharan Singh as tenant under said Teja Singh. The suit land was mortgaged by Teja Singh to Karnail Singh, father of defendants No.1 and 2 and Jassa Singh, father of defendant No.3. The father of the plaintiff had been paying rent to Karnail Singh and Jassa Singh, R.S.A. No. 3532 of 2009 -2- mortgagees. After the death of Karnail Singh and Jassa Singh, he used to pay rent to the defendants, who also issued receipts in token thereof. Despite the same, the defendants, who were influential and desperate persons were threatening to dispossess him from the suit land for which they had no right. Accordingly, he filed suit for permanent injunction so as to restrain the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit land. Defendants No.1 and 3 while opposing the suit stated that the plaintiff had concealed material facts from the Court while filing the suit. The defendants were the landlords whereas Gurcharan Singh, father of the plaintiff was tenant under them. Gurcharan Singh died on 9.4.2006 leaving behind two sons, including the plaintiff, widow and three daughters. So the plaintiff alone had no right, title or interest in the suit land. Moreover, he had sublet the suit land to Amrik Singh, Mangal Singh and Jagroop Singh and, thus, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the defendants and the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land. Accordingly, defendants No.1 and 3 prayed for dismissal of the suit. It may also be mentioned here that defendant No.2 did not contest the suit and was proceeded against exparte. In order to establish that the plaintiff had sublet the suit property to Amrik Singh and others and he himself was not in possession of the same, the defendants relied upon order Ex.D1 dated R.S.A. No. 3532 of 2009 -3- 15.10.2007 passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Baba Bakala and application Ex.D2 moved by the plaintiff. However, the application Ex.D2 was found to be not an application for correction of the khasra girdawari moved by the plaintiff, rather it was for restraining the Patwari from correcting the khasra girdawari in the names of the defendants, as according to him, they were not in possession over the suit land. The order dated 15.10.2007 of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Baba Bakala was passed during the pendency of the suit and, therefore, the defendants cannot derive any benefit from the same. While appearing as PW4, the plaintiff admitted that he had no land in the village and the suit land was irrigated from the tubewell of Amrik Singh. This circumstance is not sufficient to hold that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property or he had sublet the same in favour of Amrik Singh and others. Moreover, DW1 Sohan Singh deposed that Gurcharan Singh, father of the plaintiff, had been cultivating the land during the lifetime of Teja Singh and after the death of Teja Singh, Karnail Singh and others were receiving the theka although they were not issuing any receipt to Gurcharan Singh. After the death of Gurcharan Singh on 9.4.2006, the plaintiff alongwith other legal heirs of Gurcharan Singh stepped into his shoes and they were in possession over the suit land. The entries in the jamabandi and khasra girdawari also depict the possession of the legal heirs of Gurcharan Singh, which included the plaintiff also, over the suit R.S.A. No. 3532 of 2009 -4- property. It is also on the record that the defendants filed form L before the Collector for the recovery of rent from the plaintiff. In the same, the defendants admitted the plaintiff to be a tenant on the suit land. It is another thing that in case the plaintiff was not paying the rent, they could have asked for his eviction by following procedure prescribed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 but under no circumstances they could attempt to interfere in his possession. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below are based upon correct appreciation of the material evidence available on the file. Therefore, they cannot be termed as either perverse or suffering from any illegality or infirmity. Moreover, they cannot be disturbed in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. None of the substantial questions of law, as formulated by learned counsel for the appellant, arises for determination. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. ( T.P.S. MANN ) December 17, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1