JUDGMENT : (Ritu Tagore, J.) : Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings returned against him, appellant-plaintiff has preferred this regular second appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, affirming and upholding the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jhajjar. 2. For easy reference, parties to the lis, hereinafter, shall be referred to by their original status in the suit. 3. Appellant/plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction, seeking to restrain the defendants from illegally interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit property, bearing khewat No.4832, khatoni No. 5656, khasra No. 510 min, total measuring 4 kanal 19 marlas of gairmumkin mosque Jahanara bagh District and Tehsil Jhajjar, as detailed in the plaint and his forcible dispossession from the same. Further, plaintiff requests that the defendants be injuncted from claiming ownership of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, he, along with Bhagat Singh son of Chandgiram and Jhabbar son of Dulichand had been lessee on the suit property since 01.08.1970 @ Rs.48/- per month as rent. On the suit property, the plaintiff had raised a boundary wall, installed a gate on the eastern side and had also kept about 40,000 bricks on the suit property. It is asserted that officers of defendant No.1 and SHO Jhajjar, on the intervening night of 06/07.07.2006, threw the bricks belonging to plaintiff on the road and caused a monetary loss of Rs.20,000/- to him. The plaintiff claims that defendants have no right to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff and disturb the same forcibly except than in due course of law. On the above material assertions, plaintiff prayed for grant of decree of prohibitory injunction and damages of Rs.20,000/- for the loss sustained by him regarding the bricks. 4. Defendants, on put to notice by the learned trial Court, appeared. Defendant No.2 in the written statement pleaded that Rameshwar (the plaintiff), Mangat and Jhabbar were inducted as lessee on the suit property for a period of 11 months vide lease deed 01.08.1970 @ Rs.48/- per month as rent. The plaintiff deposited Rs.400/- only to defendant No.2-Punjab Wakf Board against total amount of rent of Rs.520/- After the expiry of 11 months, the tenancy was automatically terminated. The plaintiff deposited Rs.400/- only to defendant No.2-Punjab Wakf Board against total amount of rent of Rs.520/- After the expiry of 11 months, the tenancy was automatically terminated. The alleged assertions of constructing a boundary wall, installing gate on the suit property, and throwing bricks of the plaintiff were denied. The possession of Municipal Committee, Jhajjar (defendant No. 3), as lessee under the defendant No 2 was claimed over the suit property since 1977. The existence of a library, park and playground for the children were asserted on the suit’s property by denying the possession of the plaintiff. On the above averments, the locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit was challenged. Additionally, the suit of the plaintiff was claimed to be time barred and bad for non-issuance of legal notice to the defendant No 2-Wakf Board, prior to the filing of suit. 5. Defendant No.3-the Municipal Committee, Jhajjar took similar pleas as taken by the defendant No. 2 to oppose the case of plaintiff. The defendant No.3 pleaded that after the expiry of 11 months of lease period, the possession of the suit property was taken by the owner. In 1977, the defendant No.3-the Municipal Committee, Jhajjar took possession of the suit property and entries of khasra girdwari, were corrected in the name of the defendant No.3-the Municipal Committee, Jhajjar, after verifying the possession of the defendant No.3 on Committee, Jhajjar, raised a park for the children, in the name of Shriram Sharma Park. On these averments, defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Since the parties were at variance, learned trial Court framed the following issues “No.1: Whether the plaintiff is having lawful possession over a parcel of the land bearing khasra no.510 comprised in khewat no.4823 min, khatoni no.5656, by virtue of lease deed dated 01.08.1970? OPP. No.2: Whether the possession of plaintiff over this 4 kanals 19 marlas of land is lawful? OPP. No.3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek permanent prohibitory injuction against the defendants? OPP. No.4: Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in present form? OPD. No.5: Whether plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD. No.6: Relief.” 7. In support of their version and counter version, the parties led evidence as detailed in the judgments of the learned Courts below. 8. OPP. No.4: Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in present form? OPD. No.5: Whether plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD. No.6: Relief.” 7. In support of their version and counter version, the parties led evidence as detailed in the judgments of the learned Courts below. 8. On appraisal of the evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff concluding that he failed to establish his possession on the suit property. First Appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by learned ADJ, Jhajjar, affirming the findings of the learned trial Court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Mahavir son of Rameshwar Dutt, , appearing on behalf of the plaintiff as PW-1, categorically testified that he is in continuous possession of the suit property as lessee of Wakf Board, defendant No.2. The plaintiff presented ample evidence to substantiate that he was given the suit property on lease by defendant No.2 and his lease was never terminated or cancelled by the defendants, nor any notice was ever served upon him regarding the same. It is stated that documentary evidence including the revenue record, which carries a presumption of truth (Ex P-2 to Ex P-16 and Mark A to C), establishes the continuous possession of the plaintiff on the suit property. The learned counsel submits that as per the settled position of law a person in a continuous possession cannot be dispossessed except by adopting the due process of law. It is stated that learned Courts below wrongly relied upon the evidence produced by defendants by discarding the wholesome evidence presented by the plaintiff on assumptions and presumptions with no application of mind to the facts and evidence. A prayer is made to decree the suit of plaintiff by allowing the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgments and decree passed by learned lower Courts. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel. 11. The learned Courts below, on appraising the evidence presented on record by the parties, concluded that plaintiff after entering into a lease agreement by way of allotment order dated 01.08.1970 (P-7) for 11 months with respect to the suit property, did not pay the complete lease money to defendant No.2.-Wakf Board. 11. The learned Courts below, on appraising the evidence presented on record by the parties, concluded that plaintiff after entering into a lease agreement by way of allotment order dated 01.08.1970 (P-7) for 11 months with respect to the suit property, did not pay the complete lease money to defendant No.2.-Wakf Board. His lease was not continued and was terminated automatically after the expiry of the lease period, though, his name continued in the revenue record. Subsequently, the suit property was allotted to defendant No.3-Municipal Committee, Jhajjar, vide allotment orders Ex. D-4 and accordingly rent deed (Ex.D-5) was executed in the name of M.C. Jhajjar. The revenue entries were also corrected vide order dated 21.07.2006. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the order was dismissed vide order dated 28.03.2007 (Ex.D-3) and necessary correction was made in khasra girdawari vide entry (Ex.D-8) on the basis of rapat roznamcha (Ex.D7). PW-2 during cross examination admitted the existence of children’s park and stadium on part of the suit property, substantiating the version of the defendants. DW-1 also stated that possession of the suit property was handed over to defendant No. 3 and, since then defendant No. 3 is in possession. The learned Courts concluded that, based on the evidence presented by the plaintiff, he failed to establish his continuous permissible possession on the suit property, and accordingly, dismissed his suit. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the conclusions reached by the learned Courts below in dismissing the suit were contrary to the evidence on record. The perusal of the record, would show that vide allotment order dated 1.08.1970 (Ex.P7), defendant No.2 allotted a vacant plot of 3000 sq. yards out of khasra No.510 min, to plaintiff and others, for the period of 11 months @ of Rs.48/- per month as rent and entry of possession in favour of allottees were reflected in the revenue record in 1971. These entries of possession continued till 1999-2000 (Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-5). Allotment letter (Ex.D-10) dated 18.01.1977, indicates that land measuring 4425 sq. yards which was earlier leased out to plaintiff and others was allotted to defendant with effect from 01.01.1977 @ of Rs.60/- per month as rent for 11 months. These entries of possession continued till 1999-2000 (Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-5). Allotment letter (Ex.D-10) dated 18.01.1977, indicates that land measuring 4425 sq. yards which was earlier leased out to plaintiff and others was allotted to defendant with effect from 01.01.1977 @ of Rs.60/- per month as rent for 11 months. Defendants also proved on record allotment order Ex.D-4 which indicates that land was allotted to defendant No.3-Muncipal Committee, Jhajjar on 01.01.1977, for construction of children park, and lease agreement (Ex.D-5) was executed in this regard. Thereafter, on the application of defendant No.3, revenue entries were corrected and entered in the name of defendant No.3, in place of the plaintiff. The appeal, preferred by the plaintiff, against the order of change of revenue entries, was dismissed vide order dated 28.03.2007 (Ex.D-3) and due entries were incorporated in the name of the defendant No.3 in khasra girdawari vide entry Ex.D-6 on the basis rapat rojnamcha (Ex.D-7). The report of Local Commissioner Ex.D-2 further proves the possession of the defendant No.3 and existence of park. The PW-2 also admits existence of park and stadium of the suit property. DW-1 deposed of handing over the possession of the suit property to defendant No 3. Further rapat rojnamcha Ex.D-7 have not recorded possession of the plaintiff. This evidence has remained unrebutted by the plaintiff and clearly negates the evidentiary value of allotment letter (Ex.P-7) coming in favour of plaintiff and his possession on the suit property. The learned Courts below have thoroughly discussed all the evidences and rightly concluded that plaintiff failed to establish his continuity of possession on the suit property at the time of filing of the suit. 13. Learned counsel failed to point out any misreading or any misinterpretation of any evidence, or any material aspect or evidence having been left out from consideration of the learned Courts below. It is a trite law that revenue entries carry presumption of truth but are rebuttable. The continuity of the entry coming in favour of the plaintiff has been rebutted by the evidence led by the defendants. Further, the ratio of law laid down in Smt. Shobhya Rani and others Vs. Moti Ram and others, 2010(4) PLR 144 , is not applicable in the present case as in the case in hand, the possession of plaintiff is not proved on record. Further, the ratio of law laid down in Smt. Shobhya Rani and others Vs. Moti Ram and others, 2010(4) PLR 144 , is not applicable in the present case as in the case in hand, the possession of plaintiff is not proved on record. It is the settled position of law that no injunction can be granted against the lawful owner. In Hanumanthappa Vs Muninarayanappa, 1997 (1) RRR, SC 997 it is observed that no injunction can be issued against a lawful owner of the suit property. Similarly, in Prataprai N Kothari Vs John Braganza, 1999(3) RCR (Civil) 119, it is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that a person who has been in long and continuous possession of property can protect the same by seeking injunction against any person in the world other than the true owner. 14. All these factors taken together, makes no ground to form a different opinion to bring the findings of the learned Courts below within the realm of perversity. 15. For the reasons aforementioned, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings, which are based on application of oral and documentary evidence. No ground for interference is made out much less involvement of any substantial question of law. 16. Resultantly, there is no merit in the appeal and is, hereby, dismissed. 17. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.