R.S.A No. 2355 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 2355 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : July 09, 2009 Rajpal, ...... Appellant (s) v. Dharam Pal and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) C.M.No.6977-C of 2008 For the reasons stated in the application, as also the fact that counsel for the respondents has no objection if delay is condoned, this application is allowed and delay of 21 days in filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A No.2355 of 2008 This is an appeal filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondents from interfering into the R.S.A No. 2355 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: property measuring 1 kanal 17 marlas in his possession stated to have been purchased by the appellant. Both the Courts below accepted the sale deed of the appellant but rejected his claim for injunction. Counsel for the appellant has proposed the following substantial questions of law :- “ i) Whether the finding of the learned Courts below qua possession is not wrong inspite of holding that sale deed in favour of appellant was duly executed ? ii) Whether on the basis of a plaint it could be held that the appellant is not in possession over the suit land specifically when the Courts have held that he is owner of the suit land ? iii) Whether Courts below have misread, misinterpreted and mis-appreciated the evidence on record ? iv) Whether the Court can modify relief with regard to mandatory injunction under Order 41 Rule 33 C.P.C ? v) Whether the finding of the learned Courts below is not perverse ?” A perusal of the questions reveals that they are all questions of fact because they center around the finding of possession. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the only reason for the Courts below to hold that the appellant was not in possession was the fact that prior to the sale deed in his favour, his vendor filed a suit for possession of one kacha room against the respondents. As per the learned counsel this solitary fact could not have been enough proof to show the possession of the respondents over the entire R.S.A No. 2355 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: property so as to reject the claim of the appellant. However, counsel for the appellant is not in a position to deny that this limited argument that the earlier plaint related only to one room and, thus, the appellant should be held to be in possession over the remaining land was never raised before the Courts below and this is being sought to be raised for the first time before this Court. In my opinion, the previous plaint filed by the vendor of the appellant would definitely go to show that the said vendor was not in possession of atleast one room and, thus, the finding in this regard cannot be faulted on the ground of being based on no evidence or based on such misreading of evidence as to render the same to be perverse. As regards the argument that in any case the appellant should have been held entitled to a decree for permanent injunction in respect of the remaining land, I am afraid I cannot appreciate the same without there being any foundation laid therefor before the Courts below. Consequently, I hold the questions proposed against the appellant and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 09, 2009. JUDGE `kk'