***

NIDHI GUPTA, J. –

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/sole respondent herein for permanent injunction, has been decreed by both the Courts below.

2. At the very outset, it is pointed out that the present appeal is of the year 2017. However, notice has not yet been issued in the main case, as the matter has been adjourned since 2017 either at the repeated requests, or due to non-appearance of learned counsel for the appellants.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit stating therein that plaintiff is in possession of suit property since the age of his discretion. Prior to plaintiff, his father was in possession of suit property. It was averred that defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit property. However, being strong headed persons, they are threatening the plaintiff to dispossess for which they have no right. Plaintiff had requested defendants to admit his lawful claim however, to no avail. Accordingly, present suit was filed on 16.02.2009.

4. Vide judgment and decree dated 19.09.2013, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mukerian had decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The appeal filed by defendants was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide judgment and decree dated 13.09.2016. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendants.

5. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that they had very clearly stated in their Affidavit Ex.DW1/A that they are in possession of suit land. It is also submitted that the learned Courts below failed to appreciate that no injunction can be passed against the true owners, who are the appellants. It is submitted that appellants had duly proven on record that they are the son of Champa Nath and nature of possession has not been pleaded by the respondent. Thus, contrary findings of the learned Courts below are against the record.

6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that both the ld. lower Courts have failed to appreciate that respondent/plaintiff wants to take undue benefit of wrong entries incorporated in the Jamabandi; and due to wrong entries, plaintiff is unnecessarily harassing the appellants. The father of appellants was in possession of the suit property and after his death appellants came in possession of the property and cultivating the land and at present are also in cultivating possession over the suit property. Baba Champa Nath who was the father of the appellants was cultivating the suit property and after his death, the appellants are cultivating the suit property. The appellants have moved an application for the correction of khasra girdawri entries of the property in dispute before the Tehsildar Mukerian, as such the Ld. Lower court has failed to consider that the respondent intentionally in collusion with revenue officials trying to take undue benefit of wrong revenue entries. The same has been even observed by the ld. trial court but wrongly allowed the suit of the respondent which is contrary to finding of the Ld. Trial court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that bare perusal of the judgments & decrees reveals that the ld. Trial court even failed consider that how the revenue entries got changed in the name of the father of the respondent, when there is no evidence whatsoever except the bald statement of plaintiff, which clearly proved that the father of the plaintiff in collusion with revenue officials got changed the revenue entries in his name without any evidence. It is well settled law that Jamabandi are rebuttable, and the appellants have rebutted the Jamabandi by examining the Sarpanch of the Village and other villagers who have proved that the suit property is in possession of the appellants. Even the Lambardar of the Village has also proved that respondent is not in possession the suit property. Moreover, the suit property is being used as an approach by the appellants to their house and even a gate affixed of by the appellants exists therein.

8. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below be set aside.

9. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants. I have heard ld. counsel for the appellants and perused the case file in great detail.

10. I find no merit whatsoever in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants/defendants. The plaintiff has duly proved his possession over the suit land by producing extensive revenue record in the form of Jamabandi for the year 2005-06 Ex.P1; Khasra Girdawari from Sauni 2006 to Hari 2008 Ex.P2; Jamabandi for the year 1970-71 Ex.P3; Jamabandi for the year 1975-76 Ex.P4; Jamabandi for the year 1980-81 Ex.P5, Jamabandi for the year 1985-86 Ex.P6; and Jamabandi for the year 1990-91 Ex.P7, from which it is evident that the plaintiff is in cultivating possession of the suit property. In the Jamabandi for the year 1985-86 Ex.P6, it is also recorded that plaintiff is paying ‘Batai’. Clearly therefore, if plaintiff is paying Batai, there is no requirement for the plaintiff to produce rent slip or any Agreement in respect of his tenancy. From the revenue record, it is also established that the plaintiff is in possession of suit property as Gair Marusi. This fact has even been admitted by defendants’ witness DW1 Harbhajan Kaur. Plaintiff has shown his possession over the suit property since 1970.

11. On the other hand, Defendants have not only been unable to dispute or controvert the above said comprehensive evidence by way of revenue record produced by the plaintiff; but despite availing numerous opportunities, defendants did not produce any document which could indicate that they are in possession of suit property.

12. In view of the above undisputed and uncontroverted concurrent findings of the ld. Courts below, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees. The present regular Second Appeal is hereby dismissed.

13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Appeal dismissed.

********