HARBANS LAL Vs. MEHNGA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed a suit for permanent injunction, with a prayer that the appellants defendants be restrained from interfering in his possession of the property, description of which was given by him in his plaint. Suit was dismissed. However, he succeeded in appeal. It is an admitted fact that in the revenue record, Gram Panchayat was entered as owner of the property. Trial Court declined him the relief primarily on the ground that he was a trespasser, as he has never paid any rent etc. to the Gram Panchayat. Be that as it may, suit was filed only against the appellants and not against the Gram Panchayat. Appellate Court below, by taking note of entries in the revenue record, and also statements made by the defence witnesses, came to a conclusion that the respondent was in possession of the property in dispute, for the last more than 1- decade. As per averments made by the appellants, they have inherited rights in the land from one Nathi, who was shown in the Jamabandi in possession of the property. It is a proved fact that even during the life time of Nathi , respondent was in possession. Entry to the contrary, in the revenue record, if any, has lost its significance. In view of findings given by the appellate Court below in paras No. 10 and 11 of the impugned judgment, no case is made out for interference in pure findings of facts, as no substantial question of law has been raised. Dismissed.