The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of exclusive and peaceful possession, supported by documentary evidence and statutory presumptions, in upholding a suit for permanent injunction.

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.

Unsuccessful defendants are in regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the learned Courts below, whereby suit for permanent injunction, filed by the plaintiffs-respondents, was decreed by the learned trial Court vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 15.6.2010 and first appeal of the defendants was also dismissed by the learned first appellate Court vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 8.2.2011, upholding the judgment and decree of the learned trial court.

2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by learned trial court in para 1 of its impugned judgment, are that plaintiffs were in peaceful possession of the land, as mentioned in head note of the amended plaint, for the last more than 30 years continuously and possession of the plaintiffs was open, hostile and continuous over the suit. Initially, the suit land was banjar and was made cultivable by the plaintiffs and became most fertile in the area and possession of the plaintiff was since 1964 continuous over the suit land supported by documentary evidence, as fully recorded in the revenue record i.e. jamabandi and khasra girdawari.

3. Further stated that court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide judgment and decree dated 16.3.2000 decreed the civil suit titled as Dhanna Singh v. State of Punjab and others, in favour of the plaintiff restraining the officials of Department of Rehabilitation and Forest Department from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land comprised in khasra No. 2/21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 3//11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 4//8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 18, 19, 20, 10//1/1, 2/1, 3/1, 4/1, 5/1, 6/1, 7/1, 8/1, 9/1, 10/2, situated in village Mattewara, Tehsil and District Ludhiana and also restrained them from dispossessing plaintiffs from the suit land. Further stated that defendants were not having any right, title or interest in the suit land and the defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs illegally and forcible from the suit land.

4. Having been put to notice, defendants appeared and filed their contesting written statement raising more than one preliminary objections. Replication was filed by the plaintiffs. On completion of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues: -

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of suit property? OPP

(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of injunction? OPP

(3) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is maintainable, as the plaintiffs are not in possession over the suit property? OPD

(4) Relief.

5. In order to prove their respective stands taken in their pleadings, both the parties brought on record their documentary as well as oral evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, learned trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have duly proved their case by bringing on record cogent and convincing evidence. Accordingly, their suit for permanent injunction was decreed by the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 15.6.2010. Defendants felt aggrieved and filed their first appeal, which also came to be dismissed by the learned District Judge, vide his impugned judgment and decree dated 8.2.2011. Hence this regular second appeal at the hands of unsuccessful defendants.

6. Notice of motion was issued.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

A bare combined reading of both the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below would make it crystal clear that there was more than sufficient documentary as well as oral evidence brought on record by the plaintiffs, so as to establish their exclusive and peaceful possession over the suit property. They were recorded in possession in the column of cultivation in the jamabandi for the year 1985-86. Similarly, they were recorded in the column of possession in the jamabandi for the year 1995-96 (Ex.P-