-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 2374 of 2009 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 17, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 2374 of 2009 (O&M). Tungal ... Appellant VERSUS Shri Parkash Mistri and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate, for respondent No.1. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This is plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for mandatory injunction in respect of the house in dispute has been dismissed by both the Courts below. It may be mentioned here that Dharam, brother of plaintiff-appellant Tungal, was a co-plaintiff before the Courts -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 2374 of 2009 (O&M). below, but the instant appeal has been preferred by plaintiff- appellant Tungal alone. I have heard Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Advocate, appearing for the appellant and Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate, appearing for contesting defendant-respondent No.1 and have perused the impugned judgments. As per the case of the plaintiffs, the house in dispute was owned by Moonga, grand-father of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants-respondents Nos. 2 to 4. After the death of Moonga, his sons, namely, Chandan, father of the plaintiffs and Shalu, father of defendants-respondents Nos.2 to 4, inherited the said house. Defendant No.1 was inducted in the suit house as a licencee and it was agreed between the parties that it would be got vacated as and when required by the plaintiffs. When defendant No.1 did not vacate the said house despite several requests by the plaintiffs and service of legal notice upon defendant No.1 by the plaintiffs, the instant suit for mandatory injunction was filed by the plaintiffs. The case of defendant No.1 was that the suit house had come to Shalu, father of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in family settlement and Chandan, father of the plaintiffs, was given another house. The family settlement had been done by Moonga, father of Shalu and Chandan. It was further case of defendant No.1 that the suit house had been purchased by him from the proforma defendants vide agreement dated 31.10.1990. It was denied by defendant No.1 that he had been inducted in the -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 2374 of 2009 (O&M). house in dispute as a licencee. According to him, the question of vacating the same, therefore, did not arise. The case of defendants Nos.2 to 4 was that the house in dispute had been purchased by defendant No.1 from them vide agreement dated 31.10.1990 and that the father of the plaintiffs, having got another house in family partition, they (plaintiffs) had no concern with the house in dispute. The precise question involved in the present litigation is whether the plaintiffs were owners of the house in dispute and defendant No.1 was a licencee under them. It has been held by both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, that except the oral deposition and mere pleadings in the plaint, there was no authentic documentary evidence on record from where the ownership of the suit property could be proved by the plaintiffs. Further, the plaintiffs failed to disclose the date, month and year of the alleged licence given by them to defendant No.1, as was alleged by them in the plaint. If the plaintiffs had given the house in dispute to defendant No.1 as a licencee under them, they would have certainly given the details of such licence in the plaint. The evidence led by the parties leads to the only conclusion that the plaintiffs were in possession of the house which had fallen to the share of their father in family partition, as alleged by defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in their written statement, and the house in dispute was the same which had fallen to the share of the father of defendants Nos.2 to 4 and was sold by them to -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 2374 of 2009 (O&M). defendant No.1. Without dilating any further on the point at issue, suffice to say that since the plaintiffs have themselves failed to prove their ownership over the house in dispute, their suit for mandatory injunction in respect of the same is not maintainable. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 17, 2011. JUDGE ak