GURDEV SINGH Vs. SHERJANG SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A request is made on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant for adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel is not present in Court. Mr. Battas submits that this matter has been appearing at motion stage since 2.10.2000. The appeal was itself filed on 2.10.2000. I do not see any justification for further adjourning the matter.

(2.) A perusal of the judgments of the courts below shows that after appreciation of evidence, it has been held that although the plaintiff had alleged that the property in dispute was inside the lal lakir, he admitted in examination in chief that the property mentioned in Khasra No. 457 (0-7) belongs to the defendant. Furthermore, according to the revenue record, jamabandi Ex. D-2, this khasra number belongs to Bhura Singh who sold the same to defendant No. 1 by registered sale-deed-Ex. D.1. This sale-deed has been duly proved on record by the vendor himself appearing as DW-1 and by the attesting witness, Ex. DW-2. According to the trial Court, the plaintiff has concealed this material fact from the Court. Thereafter, it has been held that he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction. It has further been held that the plaintiff has failed to prove on record his possession of the disputed land. The findings given by the trial court have been affirmed by the appellate court.

(3.) In my view, it would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below, especially with regard to the grant of discretionary relief of injunction. Mr. Battas has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Lal v. Nihal Singh, 2002 1 RCR(Civ) 132 wherein it has been held that the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, unless the appellant satisfies in the appeal. I find that the findings recorded by both the courts below are neither perverse nor unreasonable.