LAWS(P&H)-1997-3-136

GURDIP SINGH Vs. SOHAN SINGH

Decided On March 21, 1997
GURDIP SINGH Appellant
V/S
SOHAN SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from "interfering into or taking possession of land measuring 78 Kanals 14 Marlas." The trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff filed an appeal. The appellate Court found that "----I am also of the view that the defendant-respondents have become owners of the suit land on the basis of allotment letter and the possession of the suit land was delivered to the defendants vide report No. 203 dated 21-1-1991 -----". Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal.

(2.) MR . V.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the Trial Court has found as a fact that the report No. 203 dated January 21, 1991, was a fake document. Consequently, it had held that the defendants were not in possession. Still further, the learned counsel submits that according to the Jamabandi for the year 1994-1995, a copy of which has been produced along with an application for permission to lead additional evidence, the plaintiff-appellant is in possession of the land and the Central Government has been recorded as the owner. On this basis, it is contended that the findings recorded by the learned lower appellate Court cannot be sustained. Learned counsel has also referred to an order dated December 21, 1993, passed by the Collector, Sub Division, Malout, during the pendency of the civil suit by which he rejected the appeal filed by the respondents against the order of the Assistant Collector dated June 8, 1993, regarding the correction of entry in the Khasra Girdawari. He has also referred to the ex-parte interim order 'E' passed on September 8, 1993, by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab. The claim made on behalf of the appellants has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) IN view of the above, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted.