IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.1169 of 1985 Date of Decision: 10.9.2010 Inderjit. ....... Appellant through Shri Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate. Versus Som Parkash and another. ....... Respondents through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 4.11.1982 and 13.12.1984 passed respectively by the Sub Judge IInd Class, Ambala and the Additional District Judge, Ambala whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent no.1 for permanent injunction was decreed and the appeal filed by the defendant-appellant & defendant- respondent no.2 was dismissed. The case as set up by the plaintiff was that he was owner in possession of the suit property which is situated in front of his house and which is a court-yard shown with letters ABCD in the site plan attached with the plaint and that a pucca wall marked as AB exists therein; that the defendants had no right to interfere in his possession over the suit property R.S.A.No.1169 of 1985 -2- .... and that the defendants were bent up to demolish wall AB and hence, the suit. The defendants had denied the averments made in the plaint and pleaded that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the court yard marked as ABCD in the site plan?OPP 2. whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties?OPD 3. Whether defendant no.1 has been using the property in dispute as way and water course as owner?OPD 4. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs u/s 35-A CPC?OPD 5. Relief. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, as noticed above, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and the appeal of the defendants was dismissed, which is cause of grievance in the instant second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that even though the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property was admitted by the defendants and, therefore, the Courts below were right in granting injunction, but in so far as ownership is concerned, a wrong finding has been returned by them on this issue, especially when the suit was not for declaration of ownership. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. R.S.A.No.1169 of 1985 -3- .... After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the aforesaid contention. A specific issue was struck on the aspect of the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and the parties were alive to this controversy and, therefore, led evidence to that effect. The Courts below have returned a finding that the plaintiff was owner and was also in possession of the suit property. The defendants had pleaded that the property was sold to Vir Bhan, father of the plaintiff and DW2-Hans Raj, a witness produced by them, also deposed that the suit property was sold to the father of the plaintiff. Likewise, DW3-Babu Ram also testified that the suit property was sold to the plaintiff himself. Although there is a minor variations in the aforesaid evidence, but the same is not of much importance for the simple reason that if the suit property was sold to the plaintiff, then he was in possession thereof in his own right, but if it was sold to Vir Bhan, his father, then concededly he succeeded to same. Even though this question was incidental in a suit for permanent injunction, yet, the same having been determined on the basis of evidence on record which finding is also a question of fact, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal has no merit because no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, has been shown to have arisen therein for consideration of this Court. Having regard to the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. September 10,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge