JUDGMENT L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral).:- This is second appeal by legal representatives of original plaintiff Ujagar Singh (since deceased), having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. 2. Ujagar Singh filed suit for permanent injunction alleging that he is in possession of the suit property measuring 03 marlas comprised of southern part of khasra no.135 since time immemorial and prior to him, his forefathers were in possession thereof. On plaintiff’s application made to Naib Tehsildar, spot was inspected by Halqa Patwari, who made report dated 24.08.2001 regarding possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. However, in revenue record, defendant no.1 Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee has been wrongly recorded to be in possession of the entire khasra no.135 measuring 10 marlas. Taking advantage thereof, the defendants wanted to take forcible possession of the suit property. The plaintiff accordingly sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and from dispossessing him therefrom. 3. Defendant no.1, in its written statement, inter alia pleaded that khasra no. 135 measuring 10 marlas is abadi deh and the same is owned and possessed by defendant no.1 since time immemorial and the plaintiff never came in possession of the suit land. Halqa Patwari never visited the spot nor gave any notice to defendant no.1. Report, if any made by Halqa Patwari, has no bearing on the rights of defendant no.1. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. Defendant no.2, in his written statement, pleaded that plaintiff is in illegal possession of suit property and wants to grab the same. 5. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rupnagar, vide judgment and decree dated 04.05.2007, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by legal representatives of plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Rupnagar, vide judgment and decree dated 04.08.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred by legal representatives of the plaintiff. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that in view of report dated 24.08.2001 made by Halqa Patwari, plaintiff is proved to be in possession of the suit land. The contention cannot be accepted. Revenue record including jamabandi and khasra girdawri depict that defendant no.1 is in possession of entire khasra no.135 measuring 10 marlas including the suit land measuring 03 marlas. The contention cannot be accepted. Revenue record including jamabandi and khasra girdawri depict that defendant no.1 is in possession of entire khasra no.135 measuring 10 marlas including the suit land measuring 03 marlas. The said revenue entries cannot be said to have been rebutted by the plaintiff by merely procuring a report from Halqa Patwari. If rights and liabilities of the parties are left to the whims of Halqa Patwari, who may make any such report, it would lead to a very dangerous situation. Report of Halqa Patwari regarding alleged possession of plaintiff over the vacant land in suit carries no weight in the face of consistent revenue entries depicting possession of defendant no.1 over the suit land. 8. Both the courts below have properly appreciated the evidence on record and have arrived at concurrent finding against the plaintiff-appellant. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. --------------