R.S.A. No. 2888 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2888 of 2008 Date of decision: 9.9.2008 Harmesh Singh ..Appellant v. Kewal Dass and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. H. S. Jaswal, Advocate for the appellant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The appellant- plaintiff is in appeal before this Court against the judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court was reversed. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from forcibly interfering in the physical possession of the suit land. The trial Court decreed the suit. However, in appeal before the learned Appellate Court, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was reversed. The learned Appellate Court found that the appellant-plaintiff could not produce any cogent evidence on record to show as to how title of the property forming part of Khasra No. 33 was transferred in his favour. As regards the property comprised of Khasra No. 58/4, the entry was gair mumkin dher recorded in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. Even with regard to this property as well, no material was placed on record to show as to how the possession thereof was delivered to the appellant-plaintiff. Mere reliance was on the entries in the revenue record. However, even that presumption was rebuttable. It had come in the statement of PW- Harmesh Singh that his father died in the year 1975, but still he was shown to be in possession of the property and not the appellant-plaintiff who claimed himself to be in actual physical possession. No reason had come on record as to why the entries in the revenue record were not got corrected after the death of his R.S.A. No. 2888 of 2008 [2] father by Harmesh Singh. No material was produced on record to show that the alleged house was ever constructed by the appellant-plaintiff. In fact, the appellant-plaintiff was residing in Village Littan and not Village Bhagowal, where the property in dispute is situated. Admittedly, the appellant-plaintiff had left Village Bhagowal in the year 1960. From the oral statements of the P.Ws. on record, the entries in the revenue record were completely belied. Considering this material on record, the learned Appellate Court recorded a categoric finding that the appellant-plaintiff was not entitled to injunction prayed for. Even before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff has not been able to point out any material on record to show that the finding recorded by the learned Court below, on appreciation of the material on record, is in any way preverse. Once the possession of the appellant-plaintiff on the property is not proved, there was no question of grant of decree of permanent injunction in his favour. The findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court are plain and simple findings of fact giving rise to no question of law, much less a substantial question of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 09, 2008 mk