RSA No. 2402 of 2006 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 2402 of 2006 Date of decision: October 17,2008 Jaspal Singh and others ..Appellants. Versus Dalbir Singh ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.H.N.S.Gill, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Premjit Kalia, Advocate for the respondent ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly from the suit land has been decreed with costs and appellants/defendants have been restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff- respondent forcibly and illegally from the suit land otherwise than in due course of law. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Dalbir Singh, respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction on the averments that he is owner of the suit land which he had purchased from the Government vide conveyance deed dated 29.5.2000 registered on 8.6.2000 on the basis of his possession. The suit land was “Kallar Banjar” and it was the plaintiff who made it fit for cultivation. The defendants who were never in possession of the suit land want to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly from the suit land without any right,title or interest. Hence this suit. Upon notice, the defendants/appellants appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections of maintainability of the suit alleging that RSA No. 2402 of 2006 the plaintiff-respondent is not in the actual physical cultivation possession of the suit land. On merits, it was stated that the conveyance deed dated 29.5.2000 has been cancelled by the Collector, Ajnala vide order dated 13.9.2000 as such the plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the suit land and the Punjab Government is owner of the suit land on which defendant No.3 Jaswant Kaur is in cultivating possession, thus dismissal of the suit was prayed for. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of evidence placed on record, the trial Court reached the conclusion that the conveyance deed dated 29.5.2000 is a valid document and plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 22.7.2005 by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the appellant/defendants filed an appeal. While dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants, the Additional District Judge, Amritsar affirmed the findings of the trial Court observing that the possession of the respondent-plaintiff is reflected in the revenue record placed on record of the case. It was also found that although the appellants alleged themselves to be in possession over the suit land but however, there is no satisfactory evidence to substantiate this plea of possession. Still not satisfied, the defendants have filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below. Shri H.N.S. Gill, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the courts below have erred at law by not taking into consideration the oral evidence produced on record by the appellants in support of their case and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction was not maintainable as the plaintiff was not in actual possession of the suit land and therefore, the appeal is liable to be accepted and suit of the plaintiff-respondent is liable to be dismissed. I have heard the counsel for the appellant. However, I find no force RSA No. 2402 of 2006 in the contentions raised by him. While affirming the findings of the trial Court and dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants, the lower Appellate Court observed as under:- “Although, the appellants/defendants claimed themselves, to be in possession of the suit land, but however, it is significant to note that no satisfactory evidence has been adduced to substantiate this plea of possession. As already detailed above, the possession of the respondent/plaintiff is reflected in the jamabandi and khasra girdawari proved on record. Although, the appellants/defendants alleged themselves to be in possession over the suit land for the last so many years, but however, there is no satisfactory evidence to substantiate this plea of possession. In the light of the revenue record, there is continuity of possession in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and precisely, on this account, onus was heavy upon the appellants/defendants to establish as to when and how they came into possession of the suit land. But however, it is not so disclosed. Also the appellants/defendants themselves are not clear about the extent of land qua which they claim possession. In the written statement, though the appellants/defendants claimed themselves to be in possession of the entire suit land which measured 12 kanals but however, while leading evidence, suggestions have been given to the plaintiff and his witness about themselves being in possession of ½ share of the suit land. Even the witnesses of the defendant stated the defendants to be in possession of ½ share of the suit land. However, Jaswant Kaur defendant No.3, who stepped in the witness box as DW4, while facing cross-examination, claimed possession over 12 kanals of the land. Thus, there is contradiction qua the extent of land in possession of the RSA No. 2402 of 2006 appellants-defendants. Further, it is necessary to note that even though Jaswant Kaur defendant claims to have paid the rent to the Punjab Government regarding their possession over the suit land, but however, no receipt has been proved on record. Although much reliance is placed on the order dated 13.9.2000 but however, perusal of the same reveals that it was regarding correction of entries in the khasra girdawari and therein it was concluded the appellants/defendants, being in possession of half share of the suit land as they are the sons of Piara Singh, previous owner and also reliance has been placed on the admission of the respondent/plaintiff about possession of the appellants/defendants over the suit land to the extent of ½ share but however, it is significant to note that in the jamabandi and khasra girdawari, proved on the file, at no point of time, Piara Singh was shown in possession of the suit land and precisely for this reason, in the absence of spot inspection, it cannot be said that half half share was given to the children of Piara Singh, who are now parties to the suit land and even the admission, if any, made by the plaintiff is not coming on record and in the absence of the same, it cannot be said that the possession of the defendants was in fact admitted by the respondent/plaintiff. As such, this plea of the appellants/defendants is not established. The plaintiff is established to be in possession of the suit land. Since the plaintiff has threat of forcible dispossession at the hands of the appellants/defendants, therefore, the learned lower Court on the basis of the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land has rightly granted the relief of injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Accordingly, the findings of the learned lower Court on issue No.2 are hereby affirmed.” RSA No. 2402 of 2006 From perusal of the aforesaid observation of the lower Appelalte Court, it is clear that a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the courts below on appreciation of evidence and it has been found that plaintiff-respondent is in possession of the suit land and further that the appellants failed to prove their possession over the suit land. The controversy between the parties is with regard to the possession over the suit land which is a question of fact. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any illegality or infirmity in the findings of the courts below. Thus, I find no merit in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. October 17, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE