Jasbir Singh, J. - (1.) Appellant-plaintiff, by claiming himself in possession of the property, in dispute, filed a suit for permanent injunction. It was his case that after purchase of the land, in dispute, he was put in possession and the respondents-defendants were trying to interfere in the same unnecessarily. His suit was dismissed. He also failed in appeal.
(2.) Both the Courts below have given a categoric finding that mere recital in the sale deed, will not prove that actually the appellant was put in possession of the property. As per revenue record, prior thereto, his predecessors were not shown in possession of the property. Before this Court, an application has been moved for leading additional evidence and primary reliance has been placed on document Annexure P/1 i.e. the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade Batala on 15.1.1996, vide which, khasra girdawaris were ordered to be changed in favour of the appellant. A perusal thereof would indicate that order was passed on the basis of statement made by predecessors of the appellant. Rrespondents were not party to the said litigation, as such, this Court feels that the order passed has no bearing so far as merits of the present case are concerned.
(3.) Similarly, subsequent khasra girdawaris, which were changed on the basis of order Annexure P/1, have not relevancy so far as facts of the present case are concerned. In view of findings given by the appellate Court below in paragraph Nos.18 to 20 of judgment under challenge, no case is made out for interference as counsel has failed to raise any substantial question of law at the time of arguments.;