RSA No. 265 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 265 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.03.2011. Joginder Pal .......Appellant Vs. Mahesh Kumar ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing him from the suit property. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was owner in possession of the suit land for the last more than 30 years. Plaintiff was running a dairy farm at Hoshiarpur and often used to visit his ancestral village and resided in the suit property. Plaintiff had constructed one room and stairs in the suit property about 30 years back. On 14.9.2005, Darshan Lal, brother of the plaintiff in connivance with his sons had demolished the construction, raised by the plaintiff. Darshan Lal also sold the suit property to the defendant. Defendant being a co-villager of the plaintiff was aware of the fact that plaintiff was owner of the suit land. On 25.9.2005 with the intervention of the RSA No. 265 of 2010 (O&M) -2- respectable persons, a compromise was effected between plaintiff, defendant and Darshan Lal. As per the compromise, it was settled that plaintiff would pay a sum of ` 7500/- to the defendant on or before 28.9.2005. On the said date, plaintiff had offered ` 7500/- to the defendant as per the compromise but defendant had refused to accept the said amount. Defendant had resiled from the compromise. Defendant, in his written statement, averred that plaintiff was neither owner nor in possession of the suit land. Hans Raj was owner in possession of the suit property and had sold the same to the defendant for a consideration of ` 10,000/-. Since then, defendant was in peaceful possession of the suit land. The execution of the compromise dated 25.9.2005 was admitted. It was averred that no payment was made to the defendant in terms of compromise within the stipulated period. 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 site-plan produced by plaintiff is wrong and incorrect? OPD 3. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit? OPD 4. Whether suit is collusive with and at the instance of Maula Ram, uncle of plaintiff, Om Parkash and Ramji Dass? OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and is guilty of suppressing true RSA No. 265 of 2010 (O&M) -3- and material facts from the Court? OPD 6. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file present suit? OPD 7. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 9.4.2007, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balachaur dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree was upheld, in an appeal filed by the plaintiff, by Additional District Judge, Nawanshahr 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. Both the courts below after appreciating the evidence led by the parties had given findings of fact that plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land. Admittedly, a compromise was effected between the parties on 25.9.2005. As per the said compromise ` 7500/- were to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant and ` 2500/- were to be paid by Darshan Lal, brother of the plaintiff to the defendant. The said amount was liable to be paid upto 28.9.2005 and it was mentioned in the compromise (Mark-B) that in case amount was not paid upto the stipulated date then the plot would come to Mahesh Kumar. Plaintiff had failed to establish that the amount as per compromise had been paid to the defendant. The execution of compromise (Mark-B) was not disputed by any of the parties and hence, it was rightly relied upon by both the courts below. The possession of the suit property was naturally to pass on to the plaintiff in case the amount in question had been paid to the defendant. Since the RSA No. 265 of 2010 (O&M) -4- amount in question as per the compromise had not been paid to the defendant, the presumption arises that possession of the suit property had not passed on to the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 03, 2011 Gurpreet