RSA No.4543 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4543 of 2010 (O&M). Decided on: May 11, 2011. Nihal Kaur and others. .. Appellants VERSUS Jatto Bai and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.C.M.Munjal, Advocate, for the appellants. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Delay condoned. Suit of the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering in his possession on the land in dispute measuring 14 kanals 8 marlas was decreed except for land measuring 8 marlas comprised in Rect. No.20, Killa . . . 1 RSA No.4543 of 2010 (O&M) No.3/2/2/0-8, restraining the defendant from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff-respondent from the land in dispute observing that the plaintiff-respondent has been in possession of the property in dispute pursuant to an agreement of sale of the year 1985, though the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance of agreement of sale stood dismissed but his possession had been maintained till the appellate Court vide EX. D23 and EX.D24, held that the plaintiff is in possession of the property in dispute. Counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the Courts below had misconstrued the evidence produced before the Courts below in the shape of revenue record as well as the judgment and decree EX.D15 & EX.D16, dated 03.02.1997, passed by Shri D.S.Malwai, and judgment and decree EX.P16 & EX.P17, dated 06.01.1998, passed by Shri Nirmal Singh, District Judge, Ferozepur, have been ignored wherein the plaintiff- respondent had failed to prove his possession over the suit land. He also argued that rapat roznamcha dated 13.06.1995 and Khasra Girdawari for the year 2002-03 EX.D1, have been ignored. I have carefully considered the judgments of the Courts below. All the documents referred to by counsel for the appellant have been taken into consideration by the Courts below to ultimately arrive at a conclusion that the defendant-appellant is in possession of only Rect. No.20, Killa No.3/2/2/0-8, and that a concurrent finding of fact has been arrived at by the Courts below relying upon the judgment and decree dated 10.05.1999, which is . . . 2 RSA No.4543 of 2010 (O&M) later in time to the judgment cited by the counsel for the defendants- appellants, holding that the plaintiff is in possession of the property in dispute. No ground is made out for interfering in the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below. Dismissed. However, nothing observed in the judgments passed by the Courts below or by this Court will dis-entitle the defendants-appellants to seek possession in accordance with law. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE May 11, 2011. rka . . . 3