RSA No.3259 of 1987 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3259 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.12.2010 Dass Ram ....Appellant Versus Smt. Surinder Kaur ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Gurcharan Singh Gandhi, Advocate, for the appellant. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) CM No.11275-C of 2010 For the reasons stated, order dated 13.9.2010 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. CM stands allowed. RSA No.3259 of 1987 Present appeal is filed by the defendant/appellant challenging the judgment dated 13.5.1987 passed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, thereby allowing the appeal of the plaintiff and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant/appellant not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The brief facts inter alia are that plaintiff has filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant saying suit land RSA No.3259 of 1987 (O&M) -2- is a property of the Government of Punjab and plaintiff is in possession thereof and is paying rent to the Government. It is further pleaded in the plaint that defendant has absolutely no authority, concern or title to disturb the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Defendant/appellant filed written statement and has taken specific case that defendant is the purchaser from the Government and Government has put defendant in possession and plaintiff had never been in possession of the suit property. Learned trial Court framed following issues: - “1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the property in dispute? If so its effect? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the defendant has purchased the property in dispute? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standies to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court Fee and Jurisdiction? OPD 7. Whether the Punjab Government is a necessary party? OPD 8. Relief.” Learned trial recorded finding against the plaintiff on issues No.1 and 2 and has also recorded finding of fact that defendant could not prove his title and the case that he has ever purchased the property in dispute from the Punjab Government. On the basis of finding against the plaintiff on issues No.1 and 2, suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 22.5.1984 Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff preferred appeal, which was lateron transferred and heard by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. Appellant Court did not disturb the finding of fact recorded RSA No.3259 of 1987 (O&M) -3- against the defendant on issue No.3, however, found that plaintiff could prove her possession over the property in dispute, hence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant not to make interference in the possession of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that property belonged to the Punjab Government and defendant/appellant is purchaser from the Punjab Government and is in possession of the property in dispute, hence suit of the plaintiff could have not been decreed. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that since plaintiff has to stand at her own legs and plaintiff has failed to prove any title or right to remain in possession of the disputed property, hence suit of the plaintiff ought to have been dismissed. Both the parties are admitting that property earlier belonged to the Punjab Government. According to the plaintiff, she is in possession of the property in question and paying rent to the Punjab Government, while defendant's case is that he has purchased the property from the Punjab Government. Both the Courts below did not find favour with the defendant that defendant had ever purchased the property from the Government. First Appellate Court has recorded finding of fact that from the jamabandi i.e. revenue record Ex.P1 for the year 1978-79 plaintiff's possession has been proved. Learned Appellate Court has not recorded any finding about the title either of the plaintiff or of the defendant. In the opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law is involved to be decided in the present appeal and case is concluded by the finding of fact on the basis of revenue record in favour of the RSA No.3259 of 1987 (O&M) -4- plaintiff. However, since plaintiff did not claim any title over the property in dispute, hence no title was found in favour of the plaintiff. In the opinion of this Court, decree of permanent prohibitory injunction granted by the First Appellate Court requires to be modified to the extent that defendant shall not make any interference in the possession of the plaintiff without adopting due process of law. Appeal accordingly stands disposed of. (Alok Singh) Judge December 21, 2010 R.S.