RSA No. 2767 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 2767 of 2008 Date of decision: September 4 ,2008 Yash Pal ..Appellant. Versus Banta Ram and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. By way of this appeal, the plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decrees of the courts below vide which his suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the suit property and from dispossessing him from the same forcibly and illegally has been dismissed. In the suit, the appellant claimed that he along with his brother Sat Kartar are the owners in possession of the suit property and earlier their father Gobind Ram was in possession on the basis of sale deed dated 11.12.1995 and after his death, the appellant along with his brother became the owner in possession. Since the defendants threatened to interfere into his ownership and possession, the necessity of filing the instant suit arose. The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendant Nos.1 to 7, i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 7 denied the ownership as well as possession of the appellant and his brother. It was pleaded that the suit property was allotted to defendant Nos.1 to 3 and father of defendant Nos.4 to 6 by Gram Panchayat Jhansa vide resolution dated 28.9.1986 and after allotment, they entered into possession. It was also pleaded that a pucca Nala was constructed by Gram Panchayat Jhansa in between the suit property with their consent because it was in the common interest of the village. Defendant Nos.2 ans 4 sold their share to defendant No.7 for a sum of Rs,20,000/- on 12.8.1997 and as such defendant RSA No. 2767 of 2008 2 Nos.1 to 7 happened to be the owners in possession of the suit property. Defendant No.8 Gram Panchayat in its written statement denied the ownership as well as possession of the plaintiff and claimed the ownership of the suit land . It was pleaded that the plaintiff as well as defendant Nos.1 to 7 wanted to grab the suit property by filing false suit. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Gram Panchayat in respect of the same property which was dismissed by the Court of Shri R.K. Sondhi, Civil Judge, Kurukshetra and the second suit has been filed on the same grounds against the defendants. It is relevant to mention that after filing written statement, defendant No.8 Gram Panchayat absented from the proceedings before the trial Court on 14.2.2006 and was proceeded against ex. parte. The trial Court held that since the plaintiff had failed to prove his ownership and possession over the suit property, therefore, he was not entitled to any injunction. The suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed. The appeal filed by the plaintiff before the District Judge, Kurukshetra was also dismissed. While dismissing the appeal, the learned District Judge held that the trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and the plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership and possession over the suit property and therefore, he was not entitled to any injunction. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the appellant has been non-suited mainly on the ground that he has concealed the material fact of the earlier litigation filed by him, which is incorrect. According to the learned counsel, the earlier civil suit for permanent injunction was on a different cause of action against different parties and therefore, it cannot be held that the present suit is not maintainable because of the said civil suit filed by him. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant filed a suit against the Gram Panchayat bearing Civil Suit No.836 of 1995 regarding the same property. In that Civil Suit, plot of one Gokal Chand (father of Sohan Lal) RSA No. 2767 of 2008 3 was shown towards the western side, whereas in the present case, plot of Sohan Lal has been shown on the western side of the suit property. The said Civil Suit was got dismissed as withdrawn on 26.3.2001 vide Ex.D9. Admittedly, while filing the present suit, no reference has been made to the said civil suit filed by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute the fact that in both the suits Gram Panchayat was the party and it was regarding the same suit property except the difference of description of the suit property. As stated aforesaid, the same description of the suit property has been given in both the cases. It may be seen that the difference as shown in the description of the property is meaningless, as the property is the same. In the present suit, Sohan Lal is non other than the son of Gokal Chand who was father of Sohan Lal. Thus on appreciation of evidence, both the courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact against the appellant. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. No merit. Dismissed. September 4 , 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE