RSA No.784 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.784 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 10.11.2008 Sham Lal and others …… Appellants versus Michal …….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * * Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the appellants. * * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J . This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from the property in dispute illegally, forcibly and otherwise except in due course of law, has been decreed. Briefly stated, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants to the effect that the defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property as fully described in the head note of the plaint situated at Gali No.3, Panditao-wali Gali, Partap Nagar, Bathinda. The plaintiff is son of defendants No.1 and 2 and real brother of defendants No.3 and 4. The parties to the suit are residing in the house in dispute and the plaintiff is resident of the portion shown as yellow in the site plan in the suit property along with his wife and minor children, since the date of purchase of property in dispute. The plaintiff and defendants were earlier joint in mess and business and the suit property was purchased in the name of the mother of the plaintiff with the RSA No.784 of 2008(O&M) 2 joint earnings of the parties. The relations between the parties became strained thereafter and defendants have threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. The plaintiff is in possession over the suit property and defendants have threatened to interfere in his possession. The plaintiff has prayed for a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants. Notice of this suit was served upon the defendants. The suit was contested by defendants No.1, 2 and 4. It was pleaded in the legal objections in the written statement that the plaintiff has no locus-standi or cause of action to file the suit. The plaintiff is living somewhere out of Bathinda and he is not even aware of death of defendant No.3 Naresh Kumar. The plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the suit. On merits the defendants No.1, 2 and 4 admitted the relationship amongst the parties. It was denied that the plaintiff is residing in the suit property along with his family. The plaintiff had created nuisance in the family and therefore, he has been disowned by defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 purchased the property in dispute with his own funds as she was a government employee. The defendant controverted the other averments as contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 26.4.2007 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The appeal filed by the defendants against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda vide impugned judgment and decree dated 19.9.2007. Still not satisfied, the defendants have filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. RSA No.784 of 2008(O&M) 3 After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and going through the record, I find no merit in this appeal. The Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff has been residing in the suit property. In fact, Ram Piari, DW-2 who is mother of the plaintiff-respondent has admitted that the plaintiff has been residing in the suit property with his family, however, unauthorisedly. DW-3 Mukesh Kumar has admitted in his affidavit Ex.DW3/A that the plaintiff-respondent entered into possession over the suit property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rame Gowda (D) LRs. v. Mr. Varaduppa Naidu (D) by LRs 2004 (1) RCR (Civil) 519 has observed that a person in settled possession cannot be forcibly dispossessed except in due course of law. Therefore, findings of the Courts below do not call for any interference in this appeal and they are affirmed accordingly. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. November 10, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE