RSA No. 1611 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1611 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.4.2011. Harbhajan Kaur & others .......Appellants Vs. Piara Singh & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Karanjit Singh, Advocate for the appellants. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction that the defendants be restrained from interfering in their peaceful possession. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that originally Karnail Singh father of the plaintiffs was owner in possession of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 6//23(8-0). After the death of Karnail Singh, plaintiffs along with Surjit Singh inherited the suit property and mutation No. 1611 was sanctioned in their favour. Defendants had no right, title or interest in the suit property. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the plaintiffs had suppressed material facts from the court. Defendants were in possession of the suit land. Karnail Singh had sold the suit property to defendants vide two sale deeds RSA No. 1611 of 2011 (O&M) -2- dated 25.2.2000 and 21.6.2000 and had delivered the possession of the suit property to them. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands, if so, its effect? OPD 2. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 4. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 13.8.2009, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed by Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, Karnail Singh was owner of the suit property. The case of the plaintiffs was that they had inherited the suit property after the death of their father, whereas the case of the defendants was that they had purchased the suit property from Karnail Singh vide two sale deeds (Ex. D-1 and Ex.D-2). It had come on record that the defendants had filed the suit for possession on 15.4.2005. The plaintiffs filed the present suit in June, 2005 by concealing the factum of suit for possession, filed by the defendants. In these circumstances, both the courts RSA No. 1611 of 2011 (O&M) -3- below rightly held that the plaintiffs had not come to the court with clean hands. The defendants had already adopted due course of law to take possession of the suit land on the basis of sale deeds (Ex. D-1 and Ex.D-2), alleged to have been executed in their favour by Karnail Singh, father of the plaintiffs and hence no cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff to file the suit for permanent injunction. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 05, 2011 Gurpreet