R.S.A. No. 3267 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3267 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.8.2010 ... Mani Ram and another ................Appellants vs. State of Haryana and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the appellants ... K.C. Puri, J. This is an appeal directed by plaintiff-appellants against the judgment dated 15.5.2010 passed by Sh. Naresh Kumar, Additional District Judge-V, Bhiwani, vide which the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellants against the judgment dated 8.9.2009 passed by Sh. Hemant Yadav, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani, was dismissed. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into their peaceful possession over the suit land, except in due course of law. The brief facts, as narrated by the plaintiffs are that they are in cultivating possession of the suit land as Gair Marusi tenants for R.S.A. No. 3267 of 2010 -2- the last many years. Prior to them, their forefathers were in possession of the suit land as Gair Marusi tenants and thereafter they had acquired ownership rights in the suit land. Defendants and their employees due to party friction are threatening them to give up possession of the suit land otherwise they will be dispossessed form the suit land. Defendants have no right to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs. On notice, defendants appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections of non-maintainability of the suit, absence of cause of action, lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court and suit being bad for want of notice etc. On merits, it was denied that plaintiffs are owners of the suit land. It is submitted that forefathers of the plaintiffs were in illegal and unauthorized possession of the suit land, therefore, proceedings under Village Common Land Act, were initiated. Their application was wrongly rejected and the defendants filed an appeal, which was allowed on 26.5.1998. The occupiers who were in unauthorized possession filed a revision petition against the order dated 26.5.1998, but that was also dismissed and the possession was found to be illegal and unauthorized. A wrong mutation No.858 was also sanctioned but the same has been later on cancelled and defendants-Gram Panchayat was declared owner of the suit land. It was denied that plaintiffs were tenants of the defendants. Replication was filed denying the contents of the written statement and reiterating the stand taken in the plaint. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- R.S.A. No. 3267 of 2010 -3- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 205 of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD 6. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain with present suit? OPD 7. Relief. Plaintiff-Mani Ram appeared as PW-1 and also examined PW-2 Mange Ram and closed the evidence after tendering certain documents. In rebuttal, defendants examined DW-1 Lalit Kumar and closed the evidence after tendering certain documents. Learned trial Court has returned the finding on issue No.1 to the extent that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and they can be ejected only by due course of law. Issues No. 2, 3 and 5 were decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. Issues No. 4 and 6 were decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs. In view of these findings, the suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed and defendants were restrained from ejecting the plaintiffs from the suit property except by due course of law. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment dated R.S.A. No. 3267 of 2010 -4- 8.9.2009 passed by Sh. Hemant Yadav, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani, the plaintiff-appellants filed the Ist appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 15.5.2010 passed by Sh. Naresh Kumar, Additional District Judge-V, Bhiwani. Still feeling dissatisfied with the judgments dated 15.5.2010 and 8.9.2009, referred to above, the plaintiff-appellants have preferred the present regular second appeal. The appellants in paragraph No. 9 of the grounds of appeal have mentioned that following substantial questions of law are involved in the present appeal:- 1) Whether the Courts below have drawn wrong inferences from the proved facts by applying the law erroneously? 2) Whether the documentary evidence can be ignored? Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that plaintiffs are the occupancy tenants and as such both the Courts below have committed an error in not holding that they are occupancy tenants. Both the Courts below have drawn wrong inference from the documentary evidence on the file. So, prayer has been made for acceptance of the appeal and for setting aside the judgments of both the Courts below. I have carefully considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellants, but do not find any force in those submissions. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is simplicitor the suit for injunction restraining the defendants from taking possession of the suit property by force and methods other than the due process of law. Both the Courts below have found the plaintiffs in possession and R.S.A. No. 3267 of 2010 -5- consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction has been decreed restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession. That judgment has been upheld by the Ist Appellate Court. So, there is a finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs have not filed the suit for declaration declaring them the owners on account of occupancy tenants. Moreover, the defendants have pleaded that eviction order has been passed against them in the year 1998 which has been upheld by the revisional Court and that order has not been challenged in the present lis. So, it is settled law that without claiming any relief, the Court is not bound to grant the relief. Moreover, there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that plaintiffs are in unauthorized possession of the suit property. So, that finding of fact cannot be interfered in the regular second appeal. There is nothing on the file to show that documentary evidence has been ignored by both the Courts below. So, no question of law, much less the substantial question of law has arisen in the present appeal. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) 19.8.2010 Judge chugh