RSA No.2743 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 2743 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.02.2011 Dharambir Singh and others .....Appellants Versus Parmanand .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellants **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction alleging that they were owners in possession of suit property marked by ABCDE shown in red colour in the site plan. The said property had been used by the plaintiffs since long for storing fodder and grains. Plaintiffs were also tethering their cattles in the suit land. Plaintiffs had also stored bricks to the tune of `20,000/- in the suit property. Defendant had dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land on 15.6.1998 under the garb of Civil Court decree dated 11.6.1998 passed in Civil Suit bearing No. 33 of 1996. RSA No.2743 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Defendant in his written statement averred that as per the previous litigation between the parties, plaintiffs have no concern with the suit land. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the judgment and decree dated 11.6.1998 are void, ab initio, illegal, obtained by fraud, nonest and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs?OPP 2.Whether the suit is hopelessly time barred?OPD 3.Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 4.Whether the suit is barred by principle of constructive res judicata?OPD 5.Whether the suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC?OPD 6.Whether the plaintiffs are barred by their act, conduct and admission from filing the present suit?OPD 7.Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit?OPD 8.Relief.” The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.8.2009 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the appellate Court on 10.2.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. It was proved on record that the suit filed by defendant- Parmanand against Amir Singh etc. was decreed by the Civil Judge RSA No.2743 of 2010 (O&M) 3 (Junior Division) Nuh vide judgment and decree dated 11.6.1998. The said judgment and decree were upheld upto this Court in RSA No. 3948 of 2000. The possession of the suit property had been delivered to the defendant in pursuance of the said litigation. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 11.6.1998 as reproduced by the first Appellate Court in para 16 of the judgment reads as under:- “In the present case, both the parties claims that they are owner in possession of the suit property but none of the parties have produced any documentary proof in respect of the ownership of the suit property. The defendants have admitted in their cross-examination that the suit property is surrounded by the house of the plaintiff. The plaintiff stated on oath that he was in possession of the suit property and he used the suit property for tethering his cattles etc. PW2 Shri Badu Ram stated on oath that he was Sarpanch of the gram panchayat in the year 1994 and he had been Sarpanch for about 20 years. He also stated on oath that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit property. On the other hand, the defendants did not produce any other witness for proving that they were owners in possession of the suit property. Moreover, the statement of defendant No.1 is contradictory with the contents of his written statement. In his written statement, the defendants stated in preliminary objection No.1 that they had already raised construction on the suit property. But DW1 did not mention any construction raised by them in the suit property. He only stated that he had brought 21000 bricks RSA No.2743 of 2010 (O&M) 4 for raising the boundary wall. The defendants did not produce any site plan of the suit property. Therefore, it is concluded that the plaintiff has proved that he is in possession of the suit property. Hence, this is partly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.” In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( SABINA ) JUDGE February 08,2011 arya