RSA No.4684 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4684 of 2009 Date of decision : 06.12.2010 Balbir Singh ..... Appellant Versus M/s. Paras Ram Behari Lal ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. L. N. MITTAL, Present : Mr. Rajesh Dadwal, Advocate for appellant-applicant **** L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.13888-C- of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. RSA No.4684 of 2010 Defendants Mela Ram and his two sons having lost in the both the courts below have filed the instant second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff Satya Devi filed suit against the appellants alleging that suit land measuring 19 marls or 1 canal was in joint ownership of Central Government and Pushpa. Pushpa was in exclusive possession of her share. Plaintiff purchased share of Pushpa vide sale deed dated 09.07.1998 and came in possession of the suit land as co-sharer. Defendants have no right or concern with the suit land, but they were threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit and threatened to interfere in her possession thereof. Plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the entire suit land as co-sharer. Plaintiff accordingly sought permanent RSA No.4684 of 2009 -2- injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and from dispossessing her therefrom forcibly and illegally. Defendants denied the plaint allegations and pleaded that tin shed/hut exists in the suit land and is being used by the defendants for tethering cattle. Plaintiff is not in possession of suit land. It was averred that Central Government is co-sharer in the suit land to the extent of 11 shares i.e. 11 marlas, but defendants are in possession of the entire suit land. Plaintiff's vendor Pushpa never came in possession of suit land. Earlier Harbhajan Singh was in possession thereof but he shifted to another village 25-26 years ago and surrendered possession of the suit land in favour of defendants. Since then defendants are in possession of the suit land. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.2009 decreed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by defendants has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide judgment and decree dated 13.10.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Admittedly there is no entry in the revenue record depicting possession of defendants on the suit land. On the other hand, Pushpa was co-sharer in suit land and plaintiff has purchased the share of Pushpa vide registered sale deed dated 09.07.1998. Thus plaintiff is co-sharer in the suit land, whereas defendants have no right, title or interest whatsoever in the suit land. Defendants are complete strangers to the suit land. RSA No.4684 of 2009 -3- Defendants pleaded that Harbhajan Singh surrendered possession in favour of defendants. However, there is no document in support of this version of the defendants. Moreover, the defendants have not examined widow of Harbhajan Singh as witness although Harbhajan Singh is stated to have died. Thus defendants' version has been rightly discarded. If defendants have no concern whatsoever with the suit land, the plaintiff as co-sharer in the suit land has been rightly granted injunction. Learned counsel for the appellants emphatically contended that plaintiff's vendor Pushpa stated that she never remained in possession of the suit property before sale thereof. However, this statement made by Pushpa in cross-examination cannot adversely affect the right of the plaintiff because Pushpa after having sold the suit land to the plaintiff was left with no interest therein. On the contrary, it was recited in the sale deed by Pushpa that she had delivered the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. So her subsequent statement in the witness box being contrary to recital in the sale deed, which was admitted by her, cannot adversely affect the interest of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellants also vehemently referred to testimony of plaintiff who stated that defendants are tethering cattle in the suit property. She also stated that cattle of many persons come there. However, merely because cattle of the defendants come in the suit land or are tethered there, it does not mean that defendants are in possession of the suit land. Photographs depicting defendant No.1 would not also lead to the inference that defendants are in possession of the suit land. Existence of hut or shed in the suit land also does not help the defendants because the plaintiff stated that the shed and the hut belong to her. RSA No.4684 of 2009 -4- At the cost of repetition, it has to be highlighted that the defendants have no right or concern with the suit land. They are complete strangers to the suit land. They want to grab the suit property of the plaintiff-widow. The plaintiff has purchased the suit land and has become co-sharer therein along with Central Government. The suit has been rightly decreed. There is no illegality or perversity in judgments of the courts below so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is frivolous and meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 06.12.2010 'raj'