Bhajan vs Har Chandi

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 27.11.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Palwal, dismissing appeal filed by present Appellant-Defendant against judgment and decree dated 9.6.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hath in, vide which suit filed by Respondent-Plaintiff for permanent injunction was decreed.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below.

Briefly stated, Respondent-Plaintiff filed this suit for a decree for permanent injunction against present Appellant-Defendant on the averment that he had been continuing in possession of the land in dispute as Gair Marusi and that earlier his father was in cultivating possession for the last 50 years and after his death he had been continuing in possession of the same and hence, Appellant-Defendant is having no right to interfere in his possession.

On notice being issued Respondent-Defendant denied that the Plaintiff is in possession. Rather the plea has been taken that the revenue entries are incorrect and liable to be corrected and that in fact he is in possession.

On appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by Respondent-Plaintiff and present Appellant-Defendant was restrained from interfering in possession of Respondent-Plaintiff over the suit property except in due course of law.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the Appellant-Defendant that possession of the land in dispute was handed over to him by father of Ranjit Singh DW2 vide writing Ex.D1. However, both the Courts have observed that the said writing was not signed or thumb marked by alleged vendors namely, Ganeshi, Haria, Amar Singh, Budha, Bhagwat or Parmal and that even it has not been mentioned in the said writing that the vendors were in possession of the suit land and that they delivered the possession of the suit land to Appellant. Moreover as per the revenue record, the alleged vendors were also not recorded in possession of the suit land at the time of executing the said writing. On the other hand revenue record is in favour of Respondent-Plaintiff. Earlier his father and after his death he had been shown to be in possession of the land in dispute. Presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the jamabandies u/s 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Appellant-Defendant failed to rebut the said presumption.

Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine.