JUDGMENT Amit Rawal J. (Oral) - C.M.No.l873-C of 2017 The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Legal representatives of Pala Ram-defendant no.2 as mentioned in the application are ordered to be brought on record for the purpose of prosecuting the present appeal. RSA No.855 of 2017 (O&M) 2. The appellant-defendants/counter claimants are in regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact and law whereby suit of the respondent-plaintiffs qua forcible interference and possession of the suit property has been decreed and counter claim of the appellant-defendants has been rejected. 3. The respondent-plaintiffs sought the injunction aforementioned on the premise that they had been in continuous possession of the suit land since the time of their father Ram Lal and had erected the boundary wall and tin shed. 4. The defendants opposed the suit and denied the plaintiffs to be in possession of the suit land and alleged that they had been in possession. No construction was made by the plaintiffs over the suit land. In fact, oral transaction in lieu of Rs.1200/- in the year 1966 was made by Pala Ram, father of defendant no.l, who had purchased the property. A bahi writing in this regard was also executed. 5. The plaintiffs in support of the pleadings examined Kartar Singh as PW1, Kishori Lal, draftsman as PW2 and brought on record Ex.PI to Ex.P5, jamabandis, khasra gridawari and copy of order of High Court. On the other hand, defendants examined 10 (ten) witnesses and brought on record Ex. Dl to Ex.D3. 6. Mr. G. S. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendants submitted that resolution of Panchayat, Ex. Dl reveals the settlement of the property with the father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had failed to prove their possession. It is strange that revenue records i.e. jamabandi and khasra girdawari had been produced of abadi land. The jamabandis have not been proved on record in accordance with law. The defendants/counter-claimants had set up the claim of hostile possession, though no possession was sought but onus of issue no.2 for removal of encroachment by the plaintiffs was fastened upon the defendants. The site plan of the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court vis a-vis site plan of the plaintiffs do not tally and therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. The site plan of the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court vis a-vis site plan of the plaintiffs do not tally and therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, appraised the judgments and decrees as well as record of the Courts below and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submissions of Mr. Gandhi. 7. The revenue record i.e. Ex. PI to Ex.P5 as referred to above while exhibited, not objected to and the same carried a presumption of truth under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Acts. If at all, there were certain objections, nothing prevented the appellant-defendants to rebut the aforementioned entry or any application, though the counter claim was with regard to certain revenue record. The counter claim thus runs counter to the argument of Mr. Gandhi. Resolution of the Panchayat, Ex. Dl did not reflect the nature of resolution of dispute. The injunction based upon the entries in the khasra girdawari and jamabandi was sine qua non in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rame Gowda (D) by LRs vs. Mr. Varadappa Naidu (D) by LRs and another 2004(1) SCC 769 . 8. As an upshot of my findings, arguments of Mr. Gandhi, have not been able to bring the case within the realm of illegality and perversity to form a different opinion than the one arrived at by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises for adjudication of the present appeal. 9. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.