R.S.A. No. 1804 of 2006 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1804 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision : 16.4.2009 Chet Ram .......... Appellant Versus Sunehra & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 16.12.2005 passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction has been ordered to be dismissed. The plaintiff brought a suit for injunction on the plea that he was owner in possession of the suit property, and that, the defendants had no right to interfere in possession thereof. In the written statement filed by the defendants it was pleaded that plaintiff was not owner of the suit property. It was Sh. Sukar Ram was owner in possession of the property in dispute. The plaintiff led evidence to prove his ownership and possession. However, the witnesses produced by the plaintiff failed to support the case set up. Even plaintiff / appellant himself in his cross- examination admitted that possession of one room had been taken over by R.S.A. No. 1804 of 2006 2 defendants but in spite of this no steps were taken to amend the suit or claim relief of possession. The learned Courts below have recorded, a concurrent finding of fact, that plaintiff has failed to prove, his possession over the suit property and, therefore, was not entitled to decree for permanent injunction. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law for consideration by this Court :- 1. Whether in view of the admission made by defendant No.1 the findings recorded are outcome of misreading of pleadings thus perverse ? In support of the substantial question of law the learned counsel for the appellant contends, that in the written statement, filed by the defendants they clearly admitted that they were not owner of the property in dispute and had no concern with the property in dispute. Therefore, the learned Courts below committed an error in law in dismissing the suit by misreading the pleadings of the parties by ignoring the admission made in the written statement by the defendants. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The plaintiff claimed injunction on the basis of ownership and possession but the plaintiff failed to prove his ownership or possession. Thus, the learned Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit, as plaintiff was to stand on his own legs. The alleged admission was not qua ownership or possession of appellant / R.S.A. No. 1804 of 2006 3 defendant to conclude that findings are outcome of misreading of pleadings as contended. No merit. Dismissed. 16.4.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE