R.S.A. No. 2467 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- R.S.A. No. 2467 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:- 21.12.2010 Kartar Singh ... Appellant Versus Santokh Singh & Ors. ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Premjit Kalia, Advocate, for the appellant. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff – Kartar Singh, whose suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from dispossessing him or interfering in his peaceful possession over the residential house situated in village Jhander, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar, detailed in the heading of the plaint, was dismissed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ajnala, and the first appeal preferred by him against that judgment and decree dated 29.7.2008 was dismissed by the District Judge, Amritsar, vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.2008. The plaintiff averred in his plaint that he is the exclusive owner in possession of the house, which has been constructed by him with his own income and is living there with his family. The defendants are his brothers and plot owned by their father is situated on the eastern side. The defendants have absolutely no right, title and interest therein and are threatening to occupy the same forcibly and illegally. R.S.A. No. 2467 of 2009 (O&M) -2- The suit was contested by the defendants, who filed joint written statement. They denied the contentions of the plaintiff and inter alia pleaded that the house in dispute is owned and possessed by defendant No.1 to whom the same was sold by their father Dayal Singh vide sale deed dated 22.3.2001 for ` 35,000/-. This property was purchased by Dayal Singh vide conveyance deed dated 24.8.1961 vide case No.44/VI-S decided on 3.4.1961 and vide case No. 27/VI-S decided on 24.1.1962. After that sale deed defendant No.1 became the owner of this property. The plaintiff has got no right, title or interest therein. In replication to the written statement plaintiff denied all the contentions raised therein and reiterated his averments made in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, as alleged?OPP 2. Whether defendant No.1 has become owner of the suit property by way of sale deed dated 22.3.2001 as alleged?OPD. 3. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 6. Relief. To prove his case plaintiff examined himself as PW2 and David Masih, Draftsman PW1. On the other hand, defendants examined Santokh R.S.A. No. 2467 of 2009 (O&M) -3- Singh DW1, Swaran Singh DW2, Raghbir Singh DW3 and Gurmej Singh DW4. Defendant No.1 entered into the witness box as DW1. After going through that evidence and hearing learned counsel for both the sides learned trial Court decided issues No.1 and 2 against the plaintiff and other issues in his favour and resultantly dismissed his suit. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff had filed suit for permanent injunction and the lower Court should not have decided the question of title therein. The plaintiff proved on record the electricity bills in order to prove that he is paying the electricity charges for the electricity consumed from the electric meter installed in this house. That evidence was ignored by the lower Courts and as such the findings so recorded against the plaintiff are perverse, giving rise to the substantial question of law in this appeal. It may be said that question of title should not be gone into in a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter, but the Courts are to look into the pleadings of the parties. The plaintiff himself claimed that he was the exclusive owner in possession of the house in dispute. Defendants came up with the plea that this house was owned by their father Dayal Singh and was purchased from him by defendant No.1 vide sale deed dated 22.3.2001 and has become owner in possession of this house. The issue so framed was regarding the ownership of defendant No.1 by way of that sale deed and the trial court was competent to do so. Concurrent findings of fact were recorded by both the lower Courts against the plaintiff. The findings were recorded against the plaintiff R.S.A. No. 2467 of 2009 (O&M) -4- after appreciating the evidence produced by both the sides. It cannot be said that there is any misreading of evidence by those Courts. Merely, electricity bills were not sufficient to record finding regarding possession and the same was to be recorded on the basis of the all evidence produced by the parties. When there is no such misreading of evidence it cannot be said that any substantial question of law arises in this appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. December 21, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge