RSA No. 834 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 834 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.6.2011. Guddi .......Appellant Vs. Smt. Amaro and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Rahul Chattwal, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that Babu Lal was owner of houses bearing Nos. 201, 202 and 204 situated at Gawal Mandi, Ferozepur. After the death of Babu Lal, Sukha Singh his son inherited the suit property. After the death of Sukha Singh, plaintiff being grand daughter of Babu Lal inherited the suit property in a family settlement. Hari Ram and his brother had filed a suit claiming share in house No. 202. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court and appeal filed by Hari Ram and others against the decision of the trail court was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. Defendant had no concern with the suit property but was threatening to encroach upon the courtyard of the house of the plaintiff bearing No. 202. RSA No. 834 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Hence, suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant, in his written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the answering defendant was owner of house No. 159 and had not constructed any room on the land of the Cantonment Board. No encroachment had been made by the defendant on the land qua house Nos. 201, 202 and 204. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 3. Relief.” Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 15.9.2008 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 23.7.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. In the present case, the plaintiff had sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in her peaceful possession qua house No. 202. However, the plaintiff had failed to lead any documentary evidence to substantiate her plea that she had inherited the suit property. A perusal of the judgment of the trial court reveals that it has come RSA No. 834 of 2010 (O&M) -3- on record that defendant was in possession of house No. 159. House No. 168 was situated between the houses of the plaintiff and defendant. In these circumstances, the plea taken by the plaintiff that defendant was trying to encroach upon the portion of her house bearing No. 202, was liable to be disbelieved. It has been noticed by the trail court that PW-3 Sohan Lal Clerk of Cantonment Board, Ferozepur had deposed that defendant had raised construction over the property bearing No. 159 after getting the site plan sanctioned. In his cross examination, the witness deposed that the site plan of a person is not sanctioned in case he makes encroachment over the land of Cantonment Board. Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant had encroached upon the property bearing No. 202. The said finding of fact cannot be interfered with by this court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE June 03, 2011 Gurpreet