R.S.A.No. 1952 of 2000(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1952 of 2000(O&M) Date of Decision:July 09, 2009 Hem Raj and others ---Appellants versus Municipal Committee, Narnaul and others. ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.Sanjay Vashisht,Advocate, for the appellants. None for respondent No. 1 Mr.Sunil Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 6 *** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants No. 1 to 6 from dispossessing them from the suit land. Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 1.12.1999 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggri3eved by the same, plaintiffs preferred an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 7.2.2000 passed by Additional District Judge-I, Narnaul, suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed with modification to the extent that plaintiffs are not entitled to seek the injunction against the true owners of R.S.A.No. 1952 of 2000(O&M) {2} the land in dispute. Hence, the present appeal. The case of the parties as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Narnaul, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment is as under:- “ The case of the plaintiffs is that defendant No. 7 Smt. Gulab Devi, was the tenant on the land fully detailed and described in the head-note of the plaint and situated in the revenue estate of Narnaul (hereinafter called the land in dispute) under defendant No. 1. They (plaintiffs) were sub tenants under defendant No. 7 and were carrying their business by placing there separate wooden khokhas thereon: that defendants No. 2 to 6 in connivance with defendant No. 1 had threatened to dispossess them (plaintiffs) from the land in dispute by using force, which necessitated them to file the suit, out of which the present appeal has arisen praying for a decree for permanent injunction restraining defendants No. 1 to 6 from dispossessing them from the suit land in any manner. Defendants No. 1 to 6 had contested the suit and filed two sets of written statements. On set was filed by defendant No. 1 and the another was filed b y defendants No. 2 to 6 jointly. However, defendant No. 7 filed the third set of written statement but admitting the claim of the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1 to 6 have pleaded that actually the land in dispute is owned by the defendants No. 2 to 6. They have already obtained a decree for possession from revenue court in respect of R.S.A.No. 1952 of 2000(O&M) {3} the land in dispute against the plaintiffs. Therefore, they are taking the possession of the land in dispute from the plaintiff in the execution of the decree passed by the revenue court in their favour. With these averments defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property as tenant under one Gulab Devi as alleged? OPP (2)Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (3)Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD (4)Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants No. 1 to 6 from dispossessing them from the suit land. It was averred by the plaintiffs that they were tenants of defendant No. 7-Smt. Gulab Devi. However, the plaintiffs failed to describe the suit property by giving any Khasra number. On the other hand, the case of the defendants was that the suit land was owned by defendants No. 2 to 6 and they had got a decree of possession in their favour. Learned Additional District Judge in its judgment has observed that although the plaintiffs had not described the suit property by mentioning any khasra number but the suit property bearing R.S.A.No. 1952 of 2000(O&M) {4} khasra No. 2003/2 was owned by defendants No. 2 to 6 and khasra No. 6063/2033 was owned by the defendant No 1. The said defendants further pleaded that defendants No. 7 had encroached upon the said khasra numbers and in a suit filed by them against defendant No. 7, a decree of possession was passed in their favour. So far as plaintiffs are concerned they only placed reliance on the site plan Ex. P-1 and denied in their replication that they had encroached upon khasra Nos. 6063/2033 and 2003/2. It was further observed that as per report of the Tehsildar, it was clearly mentioned that Gulab Devi-defendant No. 7 had encroached upon 538 Sq. feet area owned by defendant No. 2. Ex. D-2 was the site plan attached with the report of the Local Commissioner Ex. D-1. In Ex. D-3, copy of the Aks Sajra, the location of khasra numbers had been duly depicted. As per copy of the jamabandi for the year 1989-1990, Loku Ram was described as owner of khasra No. 2003/2 measuring 11 biswas. Gulab Devi has been described in possession of the said khasra number on payment of Rs. 40/- per year as Chakota. As per Ex. D-6, copy of the jamabandi for the year 1989-1990, land described as Khasra No. 6063/2033 is shown to be owned by defendant No. 1 and defendants No. 3 to 6 are described to be in possession of the same as tenant. Learned Additional District Judge further observed that as per Ex. P-2, copy of order dated 17.2.1992, Gulab Devi had vacated major portion of the land but she had remained in possession of some portion of the land and was required to remove the said encroachment as early as possible. Hence, learned District Judge has rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their tenancy under Gulab Devi- defendant No. 7. It is further observed that the plaintiffs were in possession of some portion of the land in R.S.A.No. 1952 of 2000(O&M) {5} dispute but their possession was unauthorized and no injunction could be issued against the true owners. The said observation of the learned District Judge cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, no interference by this Court is called for. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 09, 2009 PARAMJIT