JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- CM No. 2803.C of 2012 Application is allowed and the amended grounds of appeal are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. CM No. 2246.C of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. RSA No. 843 of 2012 and CM No. 2248.C of 2012 Plaintiffs Raghu Nath etc. have filed this second appeal, having been non-suited by both the courts below. 2. Plaintiffs/appellants filed suit against Gram Panchayat and Balbir Singh defendants/respondents alleging that the suit land measuring 12 kanals 2 marlas was carved out of the holdings of original proprietors of the village including plaintiffs at the time of consolidation of holdings in the year 1952. Accordingly, the suit land belongs to the proprietors of the village. It is subject to river action of Som river. Most of the time, suit land remained under bed of the said river and is depicted as Gair Mumkin Nadi in the revenue record. Plaintiffs are owners of other 18 kanals land adjoining the suit land. Plaintiffs also started cultivating the suit land in the year 1982 after spending huge money for its improvement. Since then, the plaintiffs being co-sharers are cultivating the suit land and are in possession thereof. However, in the year 1992 on amendment of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), Gram Panchayat defendant no. 1 started asserting its title over the suit land on the basis of mutation sanctioned in its favour pursuant to amendment of the Act. 3. Defendant no. 1 forged some lease deed in favour Girdhari Lal in the year1992-93. Plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction against Girdhari Lal and Sadhu Ram when they tried to take possession of the suit land on the basis of said lease deed. Thereafter one Mehar Singh similarly tried to take possession of the suit land as lessee of Gram Panchayat. Presently, defendant no. 2 Balbir Singh alleged lessee of Gram Panchayat defendant no. 1 attempted to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land, necessitating the filing of the suit. Accordingly, plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. 4. Defendants were proceeded against ex parte in the trial court. Later on, they put in appearance through counsel, but ex parte proceedings against them were not set aside. 5. Accordingly, plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. 4. Defendants were proceeded against ex parte in the trial court. Later on, they put in appearance through counsel, but ex parte proceedings against them were not set aside. 5. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri vide judgment and decree dated 19.2.2003 dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. First appeal preferred by plaintiffs has also been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide judgment and decree dated29.9.2011. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed the instant second appeal. Along with appeal, plaintiffs have also moved CM No. 2248.Cof 2012 for additional evidence to produce copies of mutation, jamabandi and two judgments in criminal cases. 6. I have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. 7. Counsel for the appellants contended that vide mutation Annexure A/1, ownership of the suit land has been retransferred from Gram Panchayat to Jumla Malkaan Wa Digar Haqdaran Araji Hasab Rashad Rakba and therefore, defendant no. 1 Gram Panchayat is no longer owner of the suit land. Reference in this behalf was also made to jamabandi AnnexureA/2 for the year 2006-07. It was also contended that in criminal cases, plaintiffs have been acquitted vide judgment Annexure A/3 whereas Balbir Singh (alleged lessee of Gram Panchayat) along with others stands convicted on the complaint instituted by Satya Devi plaintiff-appellant no. 2and said conviction has been upheld in appeal vide judgment AnnexureA/4. It was accordingly contended that documents Annexures A/1 to A/4are essential for proper adjudication of the lis and be, therefore, admitted byway of additional evidence. Counsel for the appellants also contended that plaintiffs (including predecessor of plaintiffs no. 2 to 5) have been recorded in possession of the suit land since 1982 and therefore, their possession stands established and consequently, they are entitled to injunction prayed for. 8. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but find myself unable to accept the same. As regards copies of mutation and jamabandi Annexures A/1 and A/2 to depict that Gram Panchayat is no longer owner of the suit land, the came cannot be admitted in evidence because ownership or title of Gram Panchayat over the suit land is not be adjudicated upon in the instant lis. Being simple suit for permanent injunction, issue of possession only is the material one. Being simple suit for permanent injunction, issue of possession only is the material one. In fact, civil court does not even have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the said question in view of section 13 of the Act. Moreover, mutation does not confer title. 9. Plaintiffs have to obtain declaration of ownership of the proprietors over the suit land from the Collector under section 13-A of the Act. As regards judgments in criminal cases Annexures A/3 and A/4, Gram Panchayat being not party thereto, the said judgments have no bearing against the rights of the Gram Panchayat in the suit land. Consequently, application for additional evidence cannot be accepted because the proposed additional evidence has no bearing on the controversy to be adjudicated upon in the lis. Accordingly, CM No. 2248. C of 2012 is dismissed. 10. Gram Panchayat has been leasing out the suit land to different persons. Plaintiffs also participated in auction for lease of the suit land by Gram Panchayat. The said participation by the plaintiffs would clearly indicate and demonstrate that they are not in possession of the suit land as co-sharers as claimed by them in the suit. On the contrary, the plaintiffs by their own conduct admitted that Gram Panchayat was in possession of the suit land and has been leasing out the same to different persons. 11. It is also significant to notice that in the suit, the plaintiffs claimed their possession as co-sharers being proprietors in the village. However, during evidence, the plaintiffs came out with a new version that they had taken the suit land on rent/lease from some other proprietors. Thus version of the plaintiffs is self contradictory. 12. Khasra girdawari regarding suit land has already been corrected in favour of Gram Panchayat by Financial Commissioner. Assistant Collector inspected the spot and corrected khasra girdawari in favour of Gram Panchayat. Collector upheld the said order, but it was set aside by the Commissioner. However, order of the Commissioner was set aside by Financial Commissioner. Thus, even according to the revenue record, Gram Panchayat is in possession of the suit land. Even jamabandi for the year 2006-07 Annexure A2 depicts Gram Panchayat as lessor in possession of the suit land through its lessee. Thus, examined from any angle, plaintiffs are not proved to be in possession of the suit land. 13. Thus, even according to the revenue record, Gram Panchayat is in possession of the suit land. Even jamabandi for the year 2006-07 Annexure A2 depicts Gram Panchayat as lessor in possession of the suit land through its lessee. Thus, examined from any angle, plaintiffs are not proved to be in possession of the suit land. 13. Concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below non suiting the plaintiffs is fully justified by the evidence on record. The same does not suffer from any perversity or illegality nor it is based on misreading or mis appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. 14. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal being meritless is dismissed in limine --------------------