Regular Second Appeal No. 478 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 478 of 2004 Date of Decision: 11.5.2009 *** Puran Chand & Anr. .. Appellants VS. Lachhman .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Kuldip Tiwari, Advocate for respondent. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the instant regular second appeal, the defendant- appellants are questioning the legality and impropriety of judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit and prayed that the defendants be restrained from interfering in his peaceful exclusive possession over the suit property. The case of the plaintiff was that he initially was in possession of the suit property being Gair Marusi Bila Lagan Bawaja Bajayaj Kabaz” and subsequently he purchased share equivalent to 2 kanals 10 marlas vide two different sale deeds dated 24.4.1997 and 12.8.1997. The defendants, who are also co-sharers started interfering in his possession, leading to the institution of suit by the plaintiff. The stand of the defendant, on the other hand, was that they are co-sharers with possession over the suit land by virtue of sale deed dated 22.12.1997 by dint of which defendant No.1 purchased the land measuring 1 kanal 13 marlas out of khewat No.731 and also filed application for correction of khasra girdawari. Both the parties led their respective evidence and on appraisal thereof, the trial concluded that both the parties are co-sharers over the suit land and are in joint possession thereon and they cannot oust each other Regular Second Appeal No. 478 of 2004 2 therefrom unless the same is get partitioned by the parties, as per their shares. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed to that extent. Thereafter, both the parties filed separately appeals. The defendant sought the dismissal of the suit while the plaintiff prayed that he be declared to be in exclusive possession over the suit land and defendant be restrained from dispossessing him forcibly and illegally. The learned first appellate Court below dismissed the appeal of the appellant while allowed that of plaintiff and held him in exclusive possession over the suit land and accordingly restrained the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property illegally and forcibly and from interfering in his possession thereon till partition of the joint holding. Hence, this regular second appeal by the defendants. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper-book carefully. The claim of the plaintiff was two folds; firstly, he was earlier in occupation of the suit land as unauthorized occupant and secondly, he subsequently purchased equal share of 2 kanals 10 marlas vide sale deeds dated 24.4.1997 and 12.8.1997. It emerges out from the records that the version of the plaintiff was strengthened with the aid of oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record. The revenue record produced speaks of his possession over the suit land and subsequent purchase made by him, meaning thereby the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land, equivalent to purchased land, much prior in time. Thus, while relying upon the evidence adduced on record showing the exclusive possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, it was held by the Court below that he is certainly entitled to preserve his possession. Rather, on the contrary, in support of their plea of having purchased the suit land by dint of sale deed dated 22.12.1997, the defendants even failed to produce on record the said sale-deed. Even nothing worth was produced by them to show that the vendor of defendant No.1 was in fact in possession of the suit land or part thereof, so that the possession could have been delivered to the vendee- defendant No.1. It was also not their case that they were in possession of the suit land prior to its purchase and only staked their claim on the basis of sale deed dated 22.12.1997, whereas, as said above, the revenue record showed the exclusive possession of the plaintiff on the suit land. The defendants Regular Second Appeal No. 478 of 2004 3 also failed to prove that they ever ousted the plaintiff from the suit land and unless and until they get the suit land vacated by evicting the plaintiff, there was no question of their coming into possession thereof, while as per their own version possession of the suit land was not delivered to them by their vendors. It is also apparent that from the own showing of the defendants, it was the plaintiff who is in possession over the suit land whereas the other evidence adduced by them was found beyond their pleadings. The revenue record produced by them also depicted the purchase of share only made by defendant No.1 in the joint khewat, but not of any specific numbers. All these facts rightly led the first appellate Court below to conclude that the plaintiff is in exclusive lawful possession of the suit land and accordingly restrained the defendants from interfering in his possession thereon by illegally and forcibly dispossessing him, till the partition of the joint holding. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the approach of the learned Appellate Court below in modifying the judgment and decree of the learned trial court is either illegal or perverse. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 11,2009 Jiten