RSA No. 2844 of 2007 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 2844 of 2007 Date of decision: May 12,2009 Shiv Kumar and another ..Appellants. Versus Hari Parkash and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. A.L.Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Surinder Saini, Advocate for the respondents. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby his suit for declaration to the effect that is owner in possession of the house in dispute and further for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession over the house in dispute and dispossessing him from the same and further alienating or transferring in any manner whatsoever was dismissed. By way of the present suit, the plaintiffs sought a decree of declaration that plaintiff No.1 was owner in possession of the house in dispute built over a plot measuring 3 marlas i.e., 97/2/3 Sq. Yards comprised in Khasra No.256(0-3) situated in Garhi Brahmanan, Sonepat as detailed in the plaint and the defendants have no right, title or concern with the same and also sought permanent injunction. The suit was contested by by the defendant-respondents by filing a joint written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that defendant No.1 purchased the plot in dispute situated in Garhi Brahmanan from Bal Kishore vide sale deed dated 16.9.1994 and constructed his house thereon. The question of purchasing of the plot by the plaintiff out of his money does not arise at all because plaintiff was not doing any work. Other RSA No. 2844 of 2007 2 averments made in the suit were also denied and it was stated that the plaintiffs had no right or title in the property in dispute and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. The courts below after appreciating the evidence on record held that plaintiffs were not the owner of the disputed house and the said house was constructed by defendant No.1 by his own funds after purchasing the plot. It was further held that the status of the plaintiff was not more than a licensor and defendant No.1 was competent to revoke the licence at any time and it was held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to decree of permanent injunction. Consequently, the suit as well as appeal filed by him were dismissed by the courts below. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal. The only argument raised in this appeal is that the appellant is in settled position of the property in dispute and therefore, he cannot be evicted except in due course of law. In support of his case, learned cousnel for the appellant has relied upon Rame Gowda(D) L.Rs. Versus Mr. Varadappa Naidu (D) by L.Rs. and another 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 519. it is relevant to mention here that the counsel for the appellant has not disputed the title of the respondents in the property in dispute in any manner. In Rame Gowda(D) L.Rs's case (supra), the plaintiff had filed a suit alleging his title as also his possession over the disputed piece of land. The trial Court found the plaintiff as having failed in proving his title. Nevertheless he was found to be in settled possession of the property. Even the defendant failed in proving his title over the disputed land so as to substantiate his entitlement to evict the plaintiff. The trial Court, therefore, left the question of title open and proceeded to determine the suit on the basis of possession protecting the established possession and restraining the attempted interference therewith. On the appeal of the defendant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the trial Court and the High Court have rightly decided the suit as it was still open to the defendant-appellant to file a suit based on his title against the plaintiff and evict RSA No. 2844 of 2007 3 the latter and the former establishing his better right to possess the property. Thus, in Rame Gowda (D) L.Rs's case (supra), the title of the parties was in dispute and the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated its earlier view observing as under:- “In Fakirbhai Bhagwandas v. Maganlal Haribhai AIR 1951 Bombay 380, a Division Bench spoke through Bhagwati, J (as his Lordship then was ) held that it is not necessary for the person claiming injunction to prove his title to the suit land., It would suffice if he proves that he was in lawful possession of the same and that his possession was invaded or threatened to be invaded by a person who has no title thereof. We respectfully agree with the view so taken. The High Court has kept the question of title open. Each of the two contending parties would be at liberty to plead all relevant facts directed towards establishing their titles, as respectively claimed, and proving the same in duly constituted legal proceedings. By way of abundant caution, we clarify that the impugned judgment shall not be taken to have decided the question of title to the suit property for or against any of the contending parties.” From the above discussion, it is also clear that there is no conflict with regard to ratio of law as settled in Rame Gowda(D) L.Rs's case (supra) and the other judgments supporting the view taken in aforesaid case. However, in the cases in hand, there is no dispute with regard to the title of the defendants in the suit property. This Court in RSA No.3800 of 2004- Sukhwant Singh Versus Divisional Forest Officer and another decided on 2.4.2009 after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rame Gowda's case and the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in (i) Premji Ratnasey Shah and others v. Union of India and others (1994) 5 SCC 547, (ii) Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others (2004) 3 SCC 137, (iii) Prataprai N. Kothari v. RSA No. 2844 of 2007 4 John Braganza (1999) 4 SCC 403, (iv) Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and others v. Pune Municipal Corporation and another (1995) 3 SCC 33, (v) Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A.Viswam (Dead) by L.Rs. (1996) 8 SCC 259, (vi) Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1993) 3 SCC 161 has held that an injunction cannot be granted against the true owner. Therefore, in view of the above discussion only one conclusion can be drawn that an injunction cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiffs who are trespassers and against the defendants who are the true owners of the suit land. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court. Dismissed. May 12, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE