RSA No. 3851 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 3851 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.02.2011. Raj Guru .......Appellant Vs. Lichhman Singh & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI Present: Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the respondent No.1. ..... M.M.S.BEDI, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff has preferred this second appeal against the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below. Suit of the plaintiff-appellant for permanent injunction regarding 8 Marlas of land purchased by him vide sale deed dated 17.9.1992 has been decreed by the courts below except for a portion shown as letters ABC in the site plan form part of the report of Local Commissioner. Defendant-respondent had claimed that he had purchased the adjacent plot measuring 7 Marlas. The lower appellate court has observed in Para No. 11 of the judgment that the plaintiff-appellant was not in possession of the whole of the plot bearing Khasra No. 293/1/3/1/1 RSA No. 3851 of 2008 (O&M) -2- measuring 8 Marlas and that the defendant-respondent No.1 had taken possession of it to the extent of portion shown with letters ABC in the site plan forming the part of the report of local commissioner, when the wall was already existing on the spot w.e.f. July 1992. The lower appellate court has also observed that the only remedy available to the plaintiff-appellant was to seek possession of this land by way of filing a suit for possession or to seek a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant-respondent to remove the encroachment having been made on the spot. The lower court also observed that in the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-appellant neither any amendment of the plaint was sought claiming that the alleged construction had been raised during the pendency of the suit, nor any removal of the structure was prayed for. On the basis of the said observations, lower appellate court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant regarding 8 Marlas of land comprised in Khasra No. 293/1/3/1/1 situated in the revenue estate of village Jhajjar except portion shown with letters ABC in the site plan forming the part of the report of local commissioner which formed part of the record of lower court. I do not find any ground to interfere in the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below that the defendant- respondent is in possession of part of the property belonging to the plaintiff-appellant. Since the plaintiff-appellant is the owner of a portion, in possession of defendant-respondent, he has got a right to claim possession of the same at any time on the basis of the title. The said relief is still available to the plaintiff-appellant. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has not been able to RSA No. 3851 of 2008 (O&M) -3- controvert the said legal right of the plaintiff-appellant. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is dismissed, leaving the plaintiff-appellant at liberty to exercise his right to claim possession of the property owned by him in accordance with law. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE February 25, 2011 Gurpreet