R.S.A. No. 3335 of 2008 (O&M) -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 3335 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 27.1.2009
Shahri & others
.......... Appellants
Versus
Bhup Singh & another
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present : Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate
for the appellants.
****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments
and decree dated 18.9.2007 and 25.9.2008 passed by the learned Courts
below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents seeking permanent
injunction has been ordered to be decreed.
The plaintiffs brought a suit for permanent injunction on the
plea that their father was a tenant over the property in dispute and after his
death on 12.2.1980 the plaintiffs succeeded to the tenancy.
The suit was contested on the plea that the plaintiff-respondents
were not in possession of the property in dispute, as the father of the
plaintiffs-respondent had surrendered possession in favour of the
appellants-defendant.
The learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding
of fact that no document produced or proved on record, showing the
R.S.A. No. 3335 of 2008 (O&M) -2-
surrender of possession.
The entries in the khasra-girdawari has been rejected by the
learned Courts below as these came in existence after filing of the suit and,
therefore, could not be relied upon.
The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the
following substantial questions of law arise for consideration by this Court
in this appeal :-
1. Whether in view of revenue entries the suit for injunction
could be decreed ?
2. Whether the judgments and decree passed by the learned
Courts below are outcome of misreading of evidence ?
However, on consideration of the matter I find that no
questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal as it is well settled
law that in absence of proof of surrender of possession plea of the
defendant-respondents that father of the plaintiffs had surrendered
possession can not be believed.
Once it was admitted position that father of the plaintiffs-
respondent was statutory tenant under the defendant-appellants, their
tenancy stood proved by way of inheritance. In absence of proof of
surrender or any order of eviction, plaintiffs were entitled to injunction.
The findings recorded by the learned Courts below, therefore, is
in consonance with the well settled law. No substantial question of law, as
framed, arise for consideration by this Court.
No merit.
Dismissed.
27.1.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE