RSA No.2879 of 2004 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2879 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.9.2008 Baldev Raj and others …… Appellants versus Tarsem Singh and others …….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * * Present: Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Malkiat Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 11 and 13. * * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J . 1. The plaintiffs filed a suit for mandatory injunction to the effect that defendants be ordered to restore the land measuring 32 kanals 8 marlas as detailed in the head note of the plaint, which is reserved as cremation ground for the adharmis for burning the dead persons, to its original position after the removal of structure. It was also averred that the defendants after encroaching upon this land have made temporary construction and thereby they have prevented the use of the burning ground. The act of the defendants is illegal and unlawful. Hence, this suit. 2. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement and counter claim wherein it has been stated that the plaintiffs have got no concern with the suit land and it has never been the cremation ground nor it was reserved for cremation ground and in fact the property in dispute is abadi deh and ownership of Makbuja adharmis. The defendants have raised the construction of their residential houses over the suit RSA No.2879 of 2004 (O&M) 2 property and are in peaceful and continuous possession for more than 30 years. Thus, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. 3. In the counter claim, the defendants have claimed the relief of permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs from converting the property in dispute into cremation ground and from demolishing the houses of the defendants/claimants and from raising any construction over the suit property. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 20.12.2000 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. However, the counter claim of the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction was decreed by restraining the plaintiffs from converting the entire suit property into cremation ground and from demolishing the houses of the defendants/counter claimants over the suit property bearing Khasra No.82 min as detailed in head note of the plaint except the portion ABCDEF as detailed in head note of the counter claim and as also shown in the site plan appended with the written statement and counter claim. 4. The plaintiffs filed an appeal against the dismissal of their suit, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Nawanshahar vide its judgment and decree dated 13.2.2004. However, no appeal was filed by the plaintiffs against the decree of counter claim of the defendants which was allowed by the trial Court. 5. This regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court passed in Civil Appeal No.9 of 2003 upholding the findings, recording the dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiffs for mandatory injunction. The appellants have not challenged the findings of the trial Court whereby counter claim of the defendants was allowed and the plaintiffs were restrained permanently from interfering in the possession of the defendants. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Since the RSA No.2879 of 2004 (O&M) 3 findings of the trial Court have become final between the parties regarding the counter claim filed by them and the plaintiffs have been restrained permanently from interfering in the possession of the defendants/restrained over the land in dispute, the present appeal is without any merit. 6. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 7. Dismissed. September 16, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE