R. S. A No. 1294 of 2006 1
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
R. S. A No. 1294 of 2006 (O&M)
Date of decision : 15.9.2008
Kuldeep Singh ..... Appellant
vs
Radhey Shyam and others ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Jagat Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for respondent no. 1.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The appellant/defendant is in Regular Second Appeal before
this court against the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts
below whereby suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for permanent
injunction was decreed.
Briefly, the facts are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit
restraining the appellant/defendant from interfering in his possession over
the suit property, continuing for the last more than 100 years. The
submission was that earlier his ancestors used to cultivate the land as
Dohlidar and after the death of his father Mahadev Prasad in the year 1978,
the respondent/plaintiff was continuing in peaceful possession of the
property. As the appellant/defendant tried to dispossess the
respondent/plaintiff forcibly from the land in dispute, the necessity to file
the suit arose. It was on the basis of the evidence led by the
respondent/plaintiff in the form of jamabandis starting from the years 1952-
53 till 1998-99 showing the possession of the property with his father
Mahadev Prasad and after his death, of the respondent/plaintiff, that the
learned court below came to the conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff was
entitled for protection of his possession.
As regards the relation of the respondent/plaintiff with
Mahadev Prasad, the reliance was placed on a birth certificate placed on
record as Ex. P-10. There was other material also on the record in the form
of service record of the respondent/plaintiff produced from Western
Railway where he was serving before retirement which also showed name
of his father Mahadev Prasad. However, that document was only marked.
R. S. A No. 1294 of 2006 2
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the land in
question was given to Mahadev Prasad as Dohlidar by the Muslims about
100 years ago who were residents of the village as Mahadev Prasad was
carrying on work of tailoring. They had given the land in question to
Mahadev Prasad in lieu of stitching funerals. As the purpose for which the
land was given to the Dohlidar was not being carried out now, the persons
who had given the land in Dohli were entitled to take back the possession.
Further submission is that the respondent/plaintiff had not been able to
prove his relation with deceased Mahadev Prasad.
However, I do not find any merit in the claim set up by the
appellant that Mahadev Prasad died issueless as the same could not be
substantiated. Rather against this, the respondent/plaintiff had been able to
prove on record that he was the only son of Mahadev Prasad as is evident
from the birth certificate, Ex. P-10, which is further corroborated from the
parentage recorded with his employer Western Railway from where he
retired.
As regards the possession of the land, besides various
jamabandis beginning from the year 1952-53 till 1998-99, even in the
proceedings initiated by the appellant/defendant under Section 145 Cr. P. C.
also it was found that it is the respondent/plaintiff who was in possession of
the property. The claim of appellant/defendant regarding possession of the
land claiming himself to be in possession of the same with the plea that the
possession of the property was delivered to him by Mahadev Prasad in the
year 1975 before his death expressing his desire to relinquish the possession
thereof, could not be proved from any document on record.
For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any illegality in
the judgment and the decree of the courts below. The findings recorded
therein are plain and simple findings of fact recorded on correct
appreciation of material on record. No question of law much less a
substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
15.9.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge