R.S.A. No.2012 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.2012 of 2005 Date of Decision:01.12.2008 Ajaib Singh .....Appellant Vs. Baru and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment/ decree dated 14.3.2005 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Karnal whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment/ decree dated 22.11.2004 rendered by the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal whereby he dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of a Bara (enclosure) comprised in khasra No.215/2 measuring 3 marlas situated at Village Basthara, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal as described in the plaint. This Bara was allotted to the plaintiff being landless by the Gram Panchayat under the scheme of the State Government. The allotment deed was duly executed by Jagdish, the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and was got registered with the Office of Sub-Registrar, Karnal at Serial No.7616/1 dated 22.6.1976. The possession of the same was delivered to the plaintiff at the time of execution and registration of the said deed. Since then, the plaintiff is in the actual physical possession being its absolute owner. After the allotment, the plaintiff had constructed the R.S.A. No.2012 of 2005 -2- kacha room on the southern eastern side thereof. Besides this, he planted a neem and kikkar trees thereon. The defendant No.1 is the father, whereas defendants No.2 and 3 are the real brothers of the plaintiff. They have absolutely got no right, title or interest in the suit bara. They are all out to dispossess the plaintiff from the same illegally and forcibly. On these allegations, the suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with or taking forcible possession of the land in dispute. In his written statement, the defendant No.1 has inter-alia pleaded that the answering defendant along with his son Naresh are the owners in possession of the bara in dispute. That earlier the baras were allotted to the landless persons, but the allotment was cancelled by the Gram Panchayat. The baras were given elsewhere on the G.T. Road. An identical plea has been taken by Naresh- defendant in his written statement. The following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit property and is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable nor the plaintiff has locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from the court? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD R.S.A. No.2012 of 2005 -3- 5. Whether the civil court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD 6. Relief. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit as noticed supra. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the plaintiff went up in appeal, which has also been dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Being undaunted and dissatisfied therewith, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. None has come forward to argue on behalf of the respondents. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, besides perusing the findings returned by both the Courts below with due care and circumspection. Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate representing the appellant urged with great eloquence that as per Ex.P.1, the appellant is the owner in possession of the suit land comprised in khasra No.215/2. The disputed Bara was allotted by the Gram Panchayat to the appellant being a landless person under the provisions of the Village Common Land (Regulations) Act as well as the scheme to provide houses to the landless and houseless persons. It is under this scheme that vide Ex.P.1, the afore-mentioned khasra number was allotted to the plaintiff- appellant. The Courts below have gravely erred in not accepting the title conferred upon the appellant vide Ex.P.1. I have well considered these submissions. It is the specific case of the appellant that the land bearing khasra No.215/2 was allotted to him in 1976. The description of the disputed land given in the plaint is as under: Khasra No.215/2 (0K-03M) bounded by R.S.A. No.2012 of 2005 -4- North: 30'-0” Brick paved street; South: 30'-0” House of Sh. Randhir S/o Sh. Baru; East: 30'-0” House of Smt. Shanti; West: 30'-0” Road. To the query, the learned counsel for the appellant answered that the site plan depicting the area bearing the above mentioned sides/ dimensions has not been placed and proved on the record. In the absence of such site plan, how it could be said that the identity of the disputed land has been established in a manner as would facilitate the Court to execute the decree, if the need be. Only the site plan could prove that the above-referred sides comprise 3 marlas land. The suit land bear khasra number. So, in the khasra girdawri, as well as jamabandi, the nature of possession would have been recorded. These entries would have shown, whether the plaintiff is in the actual physical possession of the suit land, if so, in which capacity and whether Ex.P.1 has been acted upon in the revenue record. The plaintiff was also required to produce the “Tatima Naksha” of the disputed khasra number. In the site plan, the existence of room and the alleged trees would have also been depicted. The mutation sanctioned, if any, on the basis of Ex.P.1 as well as afore-said documentary evidence have not been produced. In view of the above discussion, no fault can be found with the concurrent findings returned by both the Courts below. This being a simpliciter suit for perpetual injunction, no substantial question of law arises for determination. Sequelly, this appeal being bereft of any merit is dismissed. December 01, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No