Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This appeal, is directed, against the judgement and decree, dated 21.10.2004, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Safidon, Jind, vide which, it dismissed, the suit of the plaintiff/appellant, for permanent injunction, and the judgement and decree dated 24.05.2006, rendered by the Court of District Judge, Jind, vide which, it dismissed the appeal. 2. The plaintiff, claimed that he was biswedar of the village. Prior to consolidation, the suit land, and other land, was held and owned by Jumla Malkaan of the village. It was stated that, after consolidation, he was in actual physical possession of the suit land, in his capacity, as one of the Jumla Malkaans. It was further stated that the suit land, neither vested in the Gram Panchayat, nor it could vest in it. It was further stated that entries, in the jamabandis, in the name of Gram Panchayat, as its owner, were illegal, and unenforceable. It was further stated that there were numerous trees, on the suit land, which had been planted, and grown, by the plaintiff. It was further stated that the defendant/Gram Panchayat, by making misuse of the entries, in the revenue record, threatened to dispose of the trees, by public auction, which was fixed for 09.04.1999. The defendant/respondent, was many a time, asked not to do so, but to no avail. On its final refusal to desist from its nefarious designs, left with no other alternative, a suit for permanent injunction, was filed by the plaintiff/appellant. 3. The defendant/respondent, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, it took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was pleaded that the Civil Court, had no jurisdiction, to try the suit. It was further pleaded that the suit was not maintainable, for want of prior legal notice, under the provisions of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff, had no locus-standi, to file the suit. It was further pleaded that proper Court fee, had not been affixed, on the plaint. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff, was estopped, from filing the present suit, by his own act and conduct. It was stated that the defendant, was the owner, in possession of the suit land. It was further pleaded that proper Court fee, had not been affixed, on the plaint. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff, was estopped, from filing the present suit, by his own act and conduct. It was stated that the defendant, was the owner, in possession of the suit land. Earlier the plaintiff, was in illegal and unauthorized possession of the suit land, and he was evicted, in execution of the eviction order dated 14.10.1985, passed, against him, and, in favour of the Gram Panchayat, by the Assistant Collector, First Grade. Thereafter, the suit land, was given by the Gram Panchayat, to the Forest Department, for planting trees, in accordance with the State Government scheme, for growing more tress. It was further stated that the trees were planted by the Forest Department, and the Gram Panchayat, wanted to sell the same. It was further stated that, in the interest of the villagers, price of the trees, would be spent for the development works of the village. It was further stated that the Gram Panchayat, had already obtained necessary permission, from the higher authorities, for the sale of trees. It was further stated that the suit, was totally false, frivolous, malafide, fictitious, and liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck :- i) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of suit property being Biswedar of village of suit property, as alleged in the plaint ? OPP ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD iii) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit ? OPD iv) Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under the provision of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act ? OPD v) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct ? OPD vi) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD vii) Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, dismissed the suit. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the plaintiff/appellant, which was dismissed, by the Court of District Judge, Jind. 7. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant. 8. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, dismissed the suit. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the plaintiff/appellant, which was dismissed, by the Court of District Judge, Jind. 7. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant. 8. The following substantial questions of law, arise in this appeal, for the determination of this Court :- i) Whether the Courts below, mis-read and mis-appreciated the evidence, resulting into recording of perverse findings, leading to miscarriage of justice ? ii) Whether the settled principles of law, covering the case, have not been applied, to the facts of the case ? 9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 10. The Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, submitted that the plaintiff/appellant, was a lessee, in the land, in dispute. He further submitted that the lease, was not extended. He further submitted that after the expiry of the period of lease, the plaintiff/appellant remained in possession. He further submitted that an application, under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 , was filed by the Gram Panchayat, which was decided, in its favour. He further submitted that an execution application, was filed by the Gram Panchayat, which was dismissed. He further submitted that possession of the plaintiff was never disrupted. It was further submitted that the land, in question, was jumla malkaan, and the plaintiff/appellant, being one of the proprietors of the village, had a share therein. He further submitted that the land was not reserved for common purpose, under the consolidation scheme. He further submitted that unutilized land, belonging to the proprietors, had to be distributed amongst them, according to their shares. He further submitted that the plaintiff/appellant, thus, became the owner, in possession of the land, in dispute, being one of the proprietors thereof. He further submitted that the land, in dispute, never vested, in the Gram Panchayat. He also placed reliance on Jai Singh v. State of Haryana, 2003(2) RCR(Civil) 578 : 2003(2) PLR 658, a case, decided by a full Bench of this Court, in support of his contention. He further submitted that the land, in dispute, never vested, in the Gram Panchayat. He also placed reliance on Jai Singh v. State of Haryana, 2003(2) RCR(Civil) 578 : 2003(2) PLR 658, a case, decided by a full Bench of this Court, in support of his contention. He further submitted that the Courts below, while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, acted contrary to the ratio of law, laid down, in Jai Singhs case (supra). He further submitted that, even the Courts below, mis-read and misappreciated the evidence, the legal effect whereof, was the recording of perverse findings, leading to the dismissal of the suit, resulting into miscarriage of justice. He further submitted that the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the question, as to whether, the land belongs to Gram Panchayat, or the plaintiff/appellant, could not be determined, by the Civil Court. He further submitted that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, in this regard, was barred, by the provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 , and, as such, no help, could be drawn, by the Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, from Jai Singhs case (supra). He further submitted that, in case, the plaintiff/appellant, had any grievance, as to whether the land belonged to Gram Panchayat, or to him, he could move an application, before the Assistant Collector, for declaration of title. He further submitted that the plaintiff/appellant, was inducted, as a tenant, in the land, in dispute, for one year, but thereafter, he did not vacate the same. He further submitted that, thus, the possession of the plaintiff/appellant, in the land, in dispute, became unauthorized. He further submitted that the Gram Panchayat, then moved an application, under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 , in which, the ejectment order, was passed, against the plaintiff/appellant, and, ultimately, in execution of that decree/order, he was ejected, from the land, in dispute. He further submitted that, thereafter, the Gram Panchayat, came into possession of the land, in dispute, and gave the same to the Forest Department, under State Government Scheme, for growing more trees. He further submitted that, thereafter, the Gram Panchayat, came into possession of the land, in dispute, and gave the same to the Forest Department, under State Government Scheme, for growing more trees. He further submitted that the plaintiff/appellant, had not approached the Court, with clean hands, and, as such, his appeal, was dismissed by the First Appellate Court. He further submitted that, the plaintiff/appellant, was grossly misusing the process of the Court, and, thus, costs were also imposed upon him. He further submitted that the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, being legal and valid, are liable to be upheld. 12. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. The plaintiff/appellant, in the plaint, claimed that, he had been in possession of the land, in dispute, as a co-sharer, and had grown trees thereon. He also took up the plea, that the land, in dispute, never vested in the Gram Panchayat, nor it was in possession thereof, and, as such, it had no right, to sell the trees, by public auction. In Gram Panchayat Village Mau v. Amin Chand, 1984 RRR 441 : 1983 PLJ 329, Gram Sabha Balad Kalan and another v. Sarwan Singh and others, 1981 PLJ 311, and Lalji Singh and others v. Gram Sabha, Lahli and others, 1982 PLJ 140, the principle of law, laid down, was that if there is a dispute, as to whether, any land vested, in the Panchayat, or not, the same, could only be decided, by the Assistant Collector First Grade, under the provisions of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 . The Courts below, therefore, were right, in coming to the conclusion, that the Civil Court, had got no jurisdiction, to try the suit. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, from Jai Singhs case (supra), as the facts thereof, were clearly distinguishable. The submission of the Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. Admittedly, the eviction petition, was filed by the Gram Panchayat, against the plaintiff/appellant, in the Court of Assistant Collector First Grade. That petition, was accepted. The appeal and revision filed, against that order, were also dismissed. The submission of the Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. Admittedly, the eviction petition, was filed by the Gram Panchayat, against the plaintiff/appellant, in the Court of Assistant Collector First Grade. That petition, was accepted. The appeal and revision filed, against that order, were also dismissed. Thereafter, an execution application, was filed, by the Gram Panchayat. That execution application, was for the execution of the order of eviction, passed by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, and upheld by the higher Revenue Courts. In that execution application, eviction of the plaintiff/appellant, as also the damages, were claimed, for use and occupation of the property, in question. It is evident, from exhibit D2, copy of the order, that the execution application, was dismissed, as fully satisfied, as no further action was required. Under these circumstances, from exhibit D2, copy of the order, it was apparent that, whatever the decree, was passed, in favour of the Gram Panchayat, was fully satisfied, and only then, the execution application, was dismissed, as fully satisfied. From D2, it, therefore, could not be deduced that, in pursuance of the ejectment order, possession was not delivered by the plaintiff/appellant, to the Gram Panchayat. In these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, that no possession was delivered, in execution of that eviction order, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 14. The Appellate Court, was also right, in coming to the conclusion, that since the possession of the plaintiff/appellant, in respect of the land, in dispute, after the expiry of the lease period, became illegal and unauthorized, and he was evicted therefrom, in execution of the eviction order, he was not entitled to the injunction. 15. Not only this, it is evident, from the record, as also from the judgements and decrees of the Courts below that, earlier, the plaintiff/appellant, had filed Civil Suit No. 396, dated 08.10.1982, against the Gram Panchayat, for permanent injunction, which was dismissed as withdrawn, on 11.05.1983. In that suit, he pleaded his possession as that of a lessee of Gram Panchayat of previous one year. He, thus, sought injunction, against the Gram Panchayat, restraining it, from auctioning the land further. In that suit, he pleaded his possession as that of a lessee of Gram Panchayat of previous one year. He, thus, sought injunction, against the Gram Panchayat, restraining it, from auctioning the land further. In the suit, out of the decision whereof, the instant appeal, has arisen, the plaintiff/appellant, did not mention the fact of filing the earlier suit, and the dismissal thereof, as withdrawn. The plaintiff/appellant, also admitted that, Ishwar Singh, was his real brother. Ishwar Singh, had also filed Civil Writ Petition No. 8357 of 1991, claiming possession of the suit land. That Writ Petition, was dismissed, on 06.06.1991. This material fact, was also suppressed, by the plaintiff/appellant, though he remained Sarpanch of the village, for the period 1974-77, and 1992-95, respectively. If such a responsible person, who is the headman of the village, suppresses the material facts, from the Court, and takes different stands, in different litigation, relating to the same land, with an avowed object of causing loss to the Gram Panchayat, and to usurp the property thereof, discretion, cannot be exercised, in his favour. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, 1994(1) RRR 253 : AIR 1994 SC 853, the Apex Court, held that, a person, who comes to the Court, with falsehood, can be thrown out, at any stage of the proceedings, and no relief, can be granted to him. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable, to the facts of the instant case. This additional point, was also taken into consideration, by the Courts below, for declining the relief, to the plaintiff/appellant. No ground, therefore, is made out, to interfere with the judgements and decrees of the Courts below. The substantial questions of law depicted above, are answered, against the plaintiff/appellant. 16. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs.