IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2217 of 2008 Date of decision : 20.08.2009 Nasib Singh … Appellant Versus Dile Singh and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Sabina, J. Avtar Singh and Ashok Kumar-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession of the property in dispute. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 12.3.2005. In appeal, the Addl. District Judge (FTC), decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 17.3.2008. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the defendant No.1. The facts of the case as noticed by learned Additional District Judge, (FTC) Karnal in para Nos.2 to 6 of its judgment which reads as under:- 2. Plaintiffs suit sought a decree for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from taking possession of the suit properties, a house and a plot situated in village Raipur Roran, Tehsil Nilokheri District Karnal fully detailed in para No.1 of the plaint. Plaintiffs claimed that one Shri Ram Chander son of Data Ram was owner in possession of the suit properties which he had given to them in a family settlemtn recognized by a Civil Court decree. Plaintiffs were owners in possession of the suit properties by virtue of Civil Court decree in Civil Suit No.653 of 1994 passed by the court of Shri Ashok Bhardwaj, then learned Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Karnal, on 31.8.1994. On death of Ram Chander on 30.1.1996, defendants were bent upon to take RSA No.2217 of 2008 (O&M) forcible and illegal possession of the properties which necessitated the filing of the suit. 3. Defendants No.3(i) and 4 filed written statement to the suit raising preliminary objections regarding its maintainability, non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties, suppression of material facts, court fee, jurisdiction of the civil court etc. It was submitted that Ram Chander son of Data Ram was married with Kishni and out of the wedlock Giano defendant No.3 was born. The decree dated 31.8.1994 passed by Shri Ashok Bhardwaj, then learned Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Karnal in Civil Suit No.653 of 1993 was obtained by playing fraud and was a result of impersonation. The decree involved transfer of immovable property valued at more than Rs.100/-, therefore, it required registration. It was also stated that no family settlement took place between plaintiff and Shri Ram Chander and the plaintiffs had no preexisting right in the property of Ram Chander so the decree dated 31.8.1994 was illegal, null and void. 4. On merits, it was submitted that Giano Devi was in possession of the suit properties and after her death, defendants No.3(1) and 4 were in possession. A prayer was made for dismissal of the suit with costs. It was also prayed that the decree dated 31.8.1994 passed by Shri Ashok Bhardwaj, then learned Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Karnal in Civil Suit No.653 of 1993 be declared null and void. 5. Defendants No.1 and 2 filed separate written statement raising preliminary objections regarding plaintiffs’ locus standi, estoppels, misjoinder an nonjoinder of necessary parties, verification, suppression of material facts etc. On merits it was submitted that the plaintiffs were neither owner nor in possession of the property in question. Defendant No.1 was the owner in possession since long. Ram Chander had no concern with the house. The boundaries of the plot in question were not correctly given by the plaintiffs. The Bara was in possession of defendant No.1 as owner. Ram Chander son of Data Ram was real 2 RSA No.2217 of 2008 (O&M) uncle of defendants No.1 and 2 and had been residing with defendant No.1 Nasib Singh throughout his life. Nasib Singh was looking after Ram Chander. He never suffered any decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The alleged decree was a result of fraud. Ram Chander never appeared in the court nor filed any written statement in the suit. The decree dated 31.8.1994 was a result of impersonation and was a waste paper, no binding on the rights of the defendants. Defendant No.1 Nasib Singh was already in possession of the properties as owner and plaintiffs had no concern with it. No family settlement was entered between the plaintiffs and Ram Chander. A prayer was made for dismissal of the suit with costs. 6. Defendants No.2, 4 and 5 were given up by learned cousnel for the plaintiffs vide his statement made before the trial court on 9.2.1996. Vide order dated 26.2.1997, the learned trial court impleaded on Siri Chand as a party to the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC through his legal heirs. The legal heirs of the deceased Siri Chand defendants No.6 to 12 were brought on record of the case but were later on proceeded against ex parte. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the property mentioned in para 1 of the plaint by virtue of decree dated 31.8.94 passed by civil suit No.653 of 1994? 2. Whether the defendants are threatening for taking the possession from them forcibly? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed true and material facts from court? OPD. 5. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the appeal is devoid of any merit. 3 RSA No.2217 of 2008 (O&M) The plaintiff in order to substantiate his case that he was owner in possession of the suit property produced on record the judgment and decree (Exhibit Nos.PX and PY) passed by the Civil Court. The plaintiff in the plaint has given the description of the suit property. Since the defendants have no connection with the suit property and the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit property, the defendant cannot be allowed to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. Learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Karnal, after appreciating the evidence on record has given a finding of fact that the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit property and have right to protect their possession. The said finding of fact cannot be interfered with in appeal by this Court. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Dismissed. [ SABINA ] JUDGE 20.08.2009 sd 4