RSA No.1880 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No.1880 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: April 29,2011 Virender Kumar ......Appellant Versus Suresh Kumar and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Mani Ram Verma, Advocate for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession alleging that he was owner of the suit property on the basis of Will executed by his father. Defendants had no concern with the suit property. On 8.8.2000, defendants threatened the plaintiff that they would take forcible possession of the suit property. Plaintiff filed the Civil suit No. 147 of 2000 against the defendants. However, during the pendency of the said suit, defendants took possession of the suit property and, consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, though he was held to be owner of the suit property. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that they were in possession of the suit land for more than 12 years and they RSA No.1880 of 2011 2 had become owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for possession as alleged?OPP 2.Whether the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC?OPD 3.Whether the defendants have become the owners of the Haveli in dispute by way of adverse possession, as alleged?OPD 4.Whether the suit is time barred?OPD 5.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi nor has any cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 6.Whether the suit is not properly stamped?OPD 7.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 8.Relief” Vide judgment and decree dated 24.1.2008, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The appeal filed by the defendants against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 20.1.2011. Hence, the present appeal by defendant No.3 After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Parties are related to each other. Plaintiff filed the Civil Suit No.147 of 2000 against the defendants for permanent injunction. In RSA No.1880 of 2011 3 the said suit, plaintiff claimed that he was owner of the suit property on the basis of Will executed in his favour by his father on 9.1.1989. Defendants in the said suit took up the plea that the Will in question set up by the plaintiff was a result of fraud and misrepresentation. While deciding issue No.1, it was held that the plaintiff had become owner of the suit property on the basis of Will dated 9.1.1989 executed by his father Banarsi Dass in his favour. In order to prove the due execution of the Will, plaintiff had examined Hari Om Luthra one of the attesting witnesses of the Will and the Scribe- Om Parkash as PW3. The suit filed by the plaintiff was, however, dismissed as the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was in possession of the house in dispute. Now, after dismissal of the said suit, plaintiff has filed the present suit claiming possession of the suit property. Although in a suit for permanent injunction, no finding is necessary qua title as in the said suit the only material thing to be established by the plaintiff is that he was in possession of the suit property. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, where both the parties were claiming ownership, it was necessary for the Court to decide the issue qua title in the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction. The plaintiff had filed the suit basing his claim that he had become owner of the suit property on the basis of the Will executed by his father in his favour. In the present case, the defendants failed to establish that they had become owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession. In these circumstances, the plaintiff ,who had been held to be owner of the suit property in an earlier suit on the basis of Will, was entitled RSA No.1880 of 2011 4 to claim possession of the suit property. Plaintiff had successfully proved the due execution of the Will by his father in his favour. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge April 29, 2011 arya