Jagpal Singh vs Pal Singh

J.M. Tandon, J.

Jagpal Singh and others appellants filed a suit against Pal Singh, respondent on 3151978 for permanent injunction praying that the later be restrained from interfering with their possession of land bearing khasra Nos 41/1/1, 10/1, 1/2 and 10/2 situate within the revenue estate of village Dugal Khurd, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala.The respondent in his written statement denied that the appellants were in possession of land bearing first three Khasras numbers and further admitted that he himself was not in possession of the last Khasra number namely 41/10/2.The trial court vide order dated 26th September, 1979 held that the appellants were not in possession of the first three Khasra numbers. Their suit for permanent injunction was decreed only with respect to Khasra No. 41/10/2. The appellants filed appeal which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Patiala vide order dated 28th May, 1980. It is under these circumstances that the appellants have now filed the present regular second appeal.

In the Khasra Girdawaris for 197475, 197576 and 197677 the three disputed Khasras are shown in possession of Pal Singh, respondent. In the Jamabandi of year 197677 these Khasras numbers are shown in self occupation of the owners, i.e. the appellants. For preparation of the Jamabandi in 197677 the entry made in the Khasra Girdawari in Rabi 1976 could not be ignored. In Rabi 1976 the three disputed Khasra numbers were in occupation of Pal Singh, respondent. Entry made in Jamabandi of 197677 regarding the cultivation of the land by the owners is obviously wrong and no reliance can be placed thereon.

A report was made by the Girdawar Kanungo on September 1, 1977 that both parties i.e. the appellants and the respondent had admitted the actual possession of the owners over the disputed Khasra numbers. The Girdawar Kanungo did not take anything in writing from the respondent that the later had admitted the possession of the appellants over the land in dispute. The Girdawar Kanungo did not even obtain the signature of the respondent on his own report which he made in favour of the appellants. This report of the Girdawar Kanungo which attempted to be reflected in the Girdawari of kharif 1977 has been rightly ignored being mischievous.

In view of the discussion above the concurrent finding of the courts below that the three disputed Khasra numbers have remained in possession of the respondent and they were not in possession of the appellants is correct.

No other point has been argued.

In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.