RSA No.1467 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1467 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:11.10.2010. Tarsem Kumar ...Appellant Versus Ram Chand and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’B LE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed. The present suit was filed by Gopi Chand and Shakuntla Devi on the ground that house in dispute bearing MCK No.1013/17 situated at the first floor of shop No.36, Old Grain Market, Kaithal was owned by Basant Lal Babu Ram sons of Rura Mal. The said property was taken on rent by Jamna Dass, grandfather of the plaintiff No.1 (Gopi Chand) @ `160/- per month from its owners Basant Lal Babu Ram. After the death of Jamna Dass, Gopi Chand (plaintiff No.1) is occupying the suit property as a tenant under the heirs of Basant Lal Babu Ram and as such, the possession was claimed to be of a tenant over the property in dispute. However, admittedly, there was no rent agreement of tenancy as Basant RSA No.1467 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ****** Lal Babu Ram were the brothers of plaintiff No.2 (Shakuntla Devi) nor there was any rent receipt as the tenancy was oral. It was alleged that the defendants claimed to have purchased the suit property from the heirs of Basant Lal Babu Ram vide registered sale deed dated 10.08.2000 (Ex.D2). They have been regularly paying the electricity and water charges to the concerned departments and are also having ration card and voter card of the address of the suit property. In defence, it was alleged that the suit property was once owned and possessed by Basant Lal Babu Ram who have since expired. Their heirs had sold the suit property along with the shop on the ground floor to the defendants vide registered sale deed No.2553/1 dated 10.08.2000 against sale consideration of `3,00,000/- and actual physical possession was handed over to them. Defendant No.1 was already in possession of the shop as a tenant and is running a commission agency in the said shop under the name and style of Rikhi Ram & Sons. The said shop was taken on rent by his father Jagdish Rai from Basant Lal Babu Ram vide rent deed dated 24.09.1978 and after the date of purchase, i.e. 10.08.2000, the defendants are owners in exclusive possession over the suit property as they have shifted from their old house situated in Pansarian Mohalla to the suit property. The tenancy of Jamna Dass was categorically denied and it was pleaded that the plaintiffs are residing in their own house bearing MCK No.1014/17, which adjoins the suit property. It was also alleged that the electricity and water charges are being paid by the defendants of the suit property and the ration card and voter card of the plaintiffs are of the address of their own house bearing MCK No.1014/17. Since it was a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiffs were basically required to prove their possession over the suit property. Both the Courts below, on the basis of the evidence available on record, recorded a concurrent finding of fact that neither the plaintiffs are in possession nor they are owners of the suit property, rather it was held that the defendants are owners of the suit property by virtue of sale deed Ex.D2 RSA No.1467 of 2010 (O&M) -3- ****** and as such, the plaintiffs, who have failed to prove their tenancy and possession, were not allowed to seek injunction against the true owner. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any error in the judgment and decree of the Courts below as it is based upon appreciation of evidence and is a case of finding of fact nor could he raise any question of law much-less substantial, as envisaged under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, therefore, there is no option left with this Court but to dismiss the appeal. Hence, the present appeal is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. October 11, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE