R.S.A. No. 3390 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3390 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.04.2009 Nathu Ram and another ....appellants versus Haryana State and another ....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.5.2007 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellants for permanent injunction stands dismissed. The plaintiff/appellants brought a suit on the plea that they were owner in possession of the suit property which was ancestral property and devolved upon them by way of family settlement, which matured into a civil Court decree, and was duly registered. It was further the case of the plaintiff/appellants, that after the passing of decree in their favour, they got the site plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee Narnaul, to raise construction. The learned Courts below on the basis of evidence, recorded a R.S.A. No. 3390 of 2007 (O&M) -2- concurrent finding of fact, that the plaintiff/appellants have failed to prove their ownership over the suit property. The learned Courts below were further, pleased to hold that decree obtained by the plaintiff/appellants from their father, did not transfer title in their favour, as he had no title to suit property, thus, they were not held to be owners of the property. The learned Courts below, have been pleased to non- suit the appellants in view of the settled law, that a person seeking injunction on the basis of ownership and possession in case fails to prove ownership, is not entitled to injunction. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law: - "Whether in view of the settled possession of the plaintiff/appellants, they were entitled to decree for injunction regarding their dispossession except with due process of law?" In support of the substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellants contends, that once the possession of the plaintiff/appellants was proved, the learned Courts below ought to have granted conditional decree for injunction, restraining their dispossession from the property in dispute, except with due process of law. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted, in view of the settled law that the plaintiff who comes to Court on the basis of ownership and fails to prove the title cannot get injunction, merely on the basis of possession. This view finds support from the judgment of this Court in Mohan Lal Vs. Mohan Singh, 1995(3) PLR 563. In view of the settled proposition of law, the substantial R.S.A. No. 3390 of 2007 (O&M) -3- question of law is answered against the appellants. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge April 18, 2009 R.S.