Regular Second Appeal No.1467 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1467 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 22, 2009 Pala Ram ...........Appellant Versus Inder ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.A.K.Bura,Advocate for the appellant ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-Inder filed a suit for permanent injunction . The said suit of the plaintiff was decreed to the effect that defendant No.1 shall hand over vacant possession of land measuring 1 kanal 6 marla of rectangle No.265//1/1 by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Narwana vide judgment and decree dated 8.5.2008. Aggrieved by the same, defendant filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge,Jind vide judgment and decree dated 19.12..2008. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in para 2 of its judgment reads as under:- "2. Inder Singh plaintiff/respondent filed the suit for possession on the averments that land comprised in Khasra No.265/1/1 measuring 1 kanal 8 marla khasra No.265/9(1-5),265/8(0-1) detailed in the head note of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) is owned by plaintiff Inder and his brothers as co- sharers. The defendant/appellant Pala Ram, Dhan Singh and Regular Second Appeal No.1467 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Radha are owners of the land adjoining the suit land. Taking benefit of this fact about 1½ years before they illegally encroached upon the suit land. Appellant/defendants were requested several times to hand over vacant possession of the encroached land but they refused on which suit for possession was filed" On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff along with his brothers are owners of the suit property mentioned in head note of plaint as co-sharers ? OPP 2. Whether the defendants had taken posession of the suit property mentioned in the head note of the plaint illegally at least one and half years ago as alleged ?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession as prayed for?OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is vague?OPD 5. Whether the jurisdiction of civil court is barred ?OPD 6.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 7. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that this appeal is devoid of any merit. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants have encroached upon the land measuring 1 kanal 8 marla bearing No.265//1/1. Regular Second Appeal No.1467 of 2009 (O&M) 3 The case of the defendant-Pala Ram, on the other hand, is that he had not made any such encroachment. Exhibit P1 is a demarcation report which was conducted by the Naib Tehsildar and it was found that the appellant had encroached upon the land measuring 1 kanal 6 marla. The said finding of fact is not liable to be interfered in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge July 22, 2009 arya