In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2987 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:August 11, 2009 Gian Singh and another ---Appellants versus Kashmira Singh and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.Gurcharan Singh,Advocate, for the appellants. *** SABINA J. Plaintiffs –Gian Singh and Amritpal Singh had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment and decree dated 1.11.2008 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge,Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment and decree dated 6.5.2009. Hence, the present appeal. The facts of the suit as noticed by the learned Additional R.S.A.No. 2987 of 2009(O&M) -2- District Judge, in paras 4 and 5 of its judgment read as under:- “The brief facts of the suit out of which the present appeal has been directed are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants, their servants and agents from interfering in the peaceful, use and enjoyment of electric motor connection No. G-287-AP installed in Khasra No. 148/1 (1-7), situated at village Jarkhelan Kheri and from transferring the said connection in their name illegally or in any other manner. It has been averred that plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 are joint owners in joint possession of the land situated at village Jarkhelan Kheri along with other co sharers. The suit land is still joint and till date has not been partitioned. The plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 have been jointly using the tube well in question to irrigate the land. Khasra number in which the electric connection is installed is in exclusive possession of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No. 2 is the son of deceased Maghar Singh, who is also co sharer in the suit land. Now the defendants are intending and threatening to interfere in peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of the said electric connection and to transfer the said connection in their name illegally and forcibly, for which they have no right. The plaintiffs have also sown paddy crops in their share of land and water is very much necessary for irrigating the said crops. Hence this suit. R.S.A.No. 2987 of 2009(O&M) -3- Notice of the suit was given to the defendants who appeared and filed joint written statement denying all other averments of the plaintiffs and have prayed that suit be dismissed with costs. On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for in the head note of the plaint? OPP (2)Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPP (3)Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD (4)Relief After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction that the defendants be restrained form interfering in their peaceful use and enjoyment of an electric motor connection in dispute. Although in the revenue record, the land in question has been described to be jointly owned and possessed by the parties, however, the plaintiff-Gian Singh himself in his cross examination had admitted that the partition had been effected 30- 35 years ago. He had also admitted that the parties were in separate cultivating possession of the suit land. He was separately cultivating three acre of land. As per the pass book, electric connection was taken in the name of Ajit Singh, predecessor- in- interest of the defendants. Hence, both the courts below have rightly held that the the plaintiffs had failed to R.S.A.No. 2987 of 2009(O&M) -4- establish their case. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 11, 2009 PARAMJIT