RSA No. 3921 of 2007 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 3921 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.2.2011 Subhash and others .....Appellants Versus Mahavir and Others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Harish Garg, Advocate,for Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellants Mr.Aman Pal,Advocate for the respondents **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that they were owners in possession of the suit property bounded as under:- “North:- Bara of Kura son of Santu, South:-Baras of Duliya son of Banwari and Surta Ram, East:- Street/Thorough-fare West:- Gher of Jagtu s/o Lal Ram, and Bara of Dhupa son of Kadu, Lala son of Santu.” Plaintiffs had constructed a room in the suit property and had planted many trees. Plaintiffs had also constructed khurlies in the said property. Toka machine and other household materials were lying in RSA No. 3921 of 2007 (O&M) 2 the suit property. Plaintiffs were tethering their cattle and storing manure in the suit property. Defendants had no concern with the suit property but were threatening to cut and remove the trees. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs. Defendants in their written statements denied the contents in the plaint. It was averred that the plaintiffs were neither owners nor in possession of the suit land. Plaintiffs, in fact, wanted to encroach upon the part of the common chowk. Initially, three baras and common chowk belonged to Santu. After his death, the suit land was mutually partitioned by his sons. Lal Ram had constructed his house. Parwara had also constructed his house. Plaintiffs had not attached the correct site plan with the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit property mentioned in para no.1 of the plaint and are entitled for relief of injunction as prayed for?OPP 2.Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 3.Whether the suit of the is not maintainable?OPD 4.Whether the defendants are entitled for special costs u/s 35-A CPC?OPD 4.Relief.” The trial Court vide judgment ad decree dated 14.12.2006 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Defendants were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property and from cutting trees standing in the suit property. Aggrieved by the said judgment RSA No. 3921 of 2007 (O&M) 3 and decree, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 23.8.2007. It was further held that the plaintiffs were not owners of the suit land as there was no evidence in this regard. Hence the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. In the present case, plaintiffs had taken the plea that they were in possession of the suit land for the last more than 20 years. In order to prove their case, plaintiff No.3 appeared in the witness box as PW1 Vakil Ram and deposed as per the contents of the plaintiffs. PW2 Ram Dhari and PW3 Dayal Ram corroborated the statement of the plaintiffs. Defendants, on the other hand, failed to lead any evidence. Examination-in-chief of three witnesses were conducted but the said witnesses had failed to appear for cross-examination. Thus, the defendants had failed to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiffs to establish their possession qua the suit property. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs qua permanent injunction. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( SABINA ) JUDGE February 25, 2011 arya