IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3701 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: November 01, 2011 Kulwinder Pal and another .. Appellants Vs. Lehmber Ram .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the appellants. A.N. Jindal, J This is regular second appeal against the judgment dated 5.5.2011 passed by the Appellate Court dismissing the appeal of the appellant- defendants (herein referred as, 'the defendants') against the judgment and decree dated 19.1.2010 passed by the trial court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff- respondent (herein referred as, 'the plaintiff') for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the plot measuring 2 marlas comprising of Khata No.491/609, Khasra No.1541/524 (0-2), as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint. The plaintiff has claimed ownership over the land and on being threatened he had to file this suit for permanent injunction. The defendants contested the same stating that earlier the plaintiff had instituted a suit titled as 'Sheru vs. Punjab State' decided on 29.4.1989, but in that suit relief of permanent injunction was declined. It has been admitted that Mehnga Ram son of Ghaiya filed a suit regarding Khasra No.1540/524 (0-1) bearing Khewat No.438, Khatauni No.580 against Lehmber Ram and during the pendency of the said suit, Mehnga Ram died leaving behind his legal heirs. The said suit was decreed for possession and the appeal preferred against the said judgment was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalalndhar. The possession of the said land on the basis of the judgment and decree dated 26.10.1993 was taken by way of execution. It has also been submitted that the Khasra number in dispute does not exist at the spot, therefore, the question of any threat by the defendants does not R.S.A. No. 3701 of 2011 -2- *** arise. The remaining averments were denied and consequently he prayed for dismissal of the suit. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether suit is not maintainable in present form?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 4. Whether suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC?OPD 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under the principle of resjudicata?OPD 6. Relief. Both the parties led evidence and ultimately the suit was decreed. The appeal preferred against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the plaintiff derives title through a decree Ex.P2 which does not contain khasra No.1541/524 (0-2), but it contains Khasra No.541/524 (0-2), therefore, the plaintiff cannot be said to be owner in possession of the said khasra number in dispute on the basis of the said decree in order to claim injunction. Having considered the aforesaid contention, it transpires that the identity of the land is not in dispute. The mistake in the decree Ex.P2 appears to be clerical one. The appellants are also not claiming ownership or possession over khasra No.541/524 whereas the revenue record reveals that the plaintiff Lehmber Ram is the co-owner and is in possession of the said khasra number. On the other hand, Kulwinder Pal (DW4) has stated during cross examination that they had no dispute with regard to Khasra No.1541/524 (0-2); he has not seen the property in dispute and he cannot tell as to who is in possession of the said property. Even the facts as emerged from the cross examination conducted over Kulwinder Pal, the R.S.A. No. 3701 of 2011 -3- *** claim set up by the plaintiff would find support. Actually, the defendants having received the possession of Khasra No.1540/524 from the revenue officials have started agitating about the Khasra No.1541/524 without any right, title or interest in the same. As such, both the courts below took right view of the matter. No substantial question of law arises for determination. Dismissed in limine. November 01, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge