R.S.A. No. 1134 of 1988 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1134 of 1988 Date of Decision: 30.09.2010 Mal Singh and others .... Appellants Versus Piara Singh ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.B.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate for the respondent 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Present Second Appeal is filed assailing the judgment dated 28.1.1988 passed by first Appellate Court/Addl. District Judge Barnala thereby allowing the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by trial Court and further decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff herein restraining the defendants (appellants herein) from interfering in the possession of plaintiff over the site in dispute. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff has filed suit seeking permanent prohibitory injunction inter alia contending that Kundha Singh father of the plaintiff was owner of the plot which he has purchased from Shadi on 30.10.1940 and, R.S.A. No. 1134 of 1988 2 thereafter, plaintiff has purchased the plot from his father vide sale deed dated 5.3.1975. Defendants are threatening to dispossess the plaintiff, hence, necessity arises to file a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. 3. Defendants (appellants herein) filed written statement before the trial Court stating that neither father of the plaintiff nor plaintiff is owner in possession of the plot in dispute and property in dispute is a part of Khasra No. 2098 and 2599/2 which belongs to the defendants. 4. Learned trial Court has framed three issues. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff having observed that neither plaintiff is proved to be owner nor defendants are proved to be owner of the disputed property and it seems that both the parties are intending to grab the property in dispute. Learned trial Court has further observed that the appropriate remedy for the plaintiff and the defendants is to move the revenue authorities or consolidation authorities for the location of the numbers and if plot is considered to be part of Khasra numbers mentioned in Jamabandi Ex. P-6 then the plaintiff can have the matter decided in the presence of provincial Government which has been recorded to be owner and not in its absence. 5. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment of the trial court, plaintiff (respondent herein) preferred the first appeal being Civil Appeal No. 88 of 1985 which was allowed by the first Appellate Court. First Appellate Court considered material available on record and found that plaintiff has successfully proved that he is owner in possession of the property in dispute. R.S.A. No. 1134 of 1988 3 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7 Undisputedly defendants have not come in the witness box stating on oath that they are the owners in possession of the property in dispute. The first Appellate Court has recorded finding of fact that plaintiff has successfully proved his ownership and possession over the property in dispute by producing Ex. PW-4/1 and PW 4/D and by other evidences. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal in view of the finding of fact recorded by the first Appellate Court and in view of the fact that defendants have not controverted the stand of the plaintiff by coming into witness box and in view of the fact that permanent injunction granted by the first Appellate Court is operating against the appellant herein for last twenty two years. 8. No interference is called for. 9. Appeal is dismissed. No order to cost. (ALOK SINGH) 30.09.2010 JUDGE reena