IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4260 of 2009 Date of decision : 23.11.2009 Lal Chand and another … Appellants Versus Phuman Singh …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.H.S.Batth, Advocate for the appellants. Sabina, J. (Oral) The plaintiff-Phuman Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly and illegally from the suit land. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 25.8.2006 . In appeal, the Addl. District Judge, Ferozepur upheld the said judgment and decree vide judgment and decree dated 4.4.2007. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the defendants. The facts of the case as noticed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur in para Nos.2 to 3 of its judgment reads as under:- “2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case of the plaintiff are that he is absolute owner in possession of the suit land measuring 8 kanal fully detailed nd described in para no.1 of the plaint. Previously, the suit land was owned by the Provincial Govt. and the same was purchased by him from the Provincial Govt. and mutation to this effect was also sanctioned. The suit land was allotted to him on the basis of his possession. His possession over the suit land is lawful, peaceful and continuous being owner and the same has also been recorded in the revenue record. The defendants have got no concern either with possession or with the title of the suit land. The defendants being influential persons tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land but their efforts were foiled due to intervention of RSA No.4260 of 2009(O&M) respectable of the locality. As such plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from the suit land. 3. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the suit is counter-blast to the application filed by defendant No.1 for correction of Khasra girdawri and that the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from the court. On merits, it was pleaded that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land rather defendant no.1 is in possession of the last for the last more than 10 years. It was further pleaded that the suit land is situated after crossing Indo-Pak fencing wire. Khasra girdawri was wrongly recorded in favour of the plaintiff and allotment of the suit land in faovur of the plaintiff is wrong and illegal. It was further pleaded that when the defendants came to know about the khasra girdawri in the name of the plaintiff, he applied for correction of khasra girdawri in the Court of A.C.II, Guru Har Sahai, District Ferozepur. Rest of the averments made in the plaint were denied being incorrect. Lastly, it was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed with costs.” From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff is in possession of the suit property?OPP. 3. Whether the defendants are forcibly and illegally dispossessing the plaintiff over the suit land?OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from the Court?OPD. 5. Relief.” 2 RSA No.4260 of 2009(O&M) After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from dispossessing him forcibly from the suit land. The plaintiff successfully led evidence to establish that he was owner in possession of the suit land measuring 8 kanals. The Provincial Govt. had transferred the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and in this regard mutation No.168 was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff. The said mutation was duly reflected in the revenue record. As per entry in the khasra-girdawari, the plaintiff was earlier shown to be in possession of the suit land as gair marusi. The appellant-defendants on the other hand, failed to establish that they were in possession of the suit land. Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties have given a finding of fact that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. The said finding of fact cannot be interfered by this Court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court in this appeal. Dismissed. [ SABINA ] JUDGE 23.11.2009 sd 3