RSA No.1543 of 2006(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1543 of 2006(O&M) Date of decision: 5.12.2008 Smt. Chiriya and others ......Appellants Versus Singh Ram and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Y.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Gopi Chand Bhalla, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is plaintiffs’ second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby their suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly occupying the suit property and further restraining them to make construction over the suit property has been dismissed. The plaintiffs claiming themselves to be owner in possession of the disputed property comprising in khewat No.85 khata No.126, Rect. No.59, Kila Nos.12(2-13), 19 min East (2-15) measuring 5 kanals 8 marlas as detailed and described in para No.1 of the plaint, instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants Singh Ram etc. with the averments that the name of plaintiff No.3 Hosiar has been continuing in the column of cultivation while Duli Chand, predecessor of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 had expired about 17-18 years ago and after the death of said Duli Chand, plaintiffs No.1 and 2 along with plaintiff No.3 are in joint cultivating possession of the suit land openly and without payment of rent and they have also been in possession of the entire land comprising in khewat RSA No.1543 of 2006(O&M) 2 No.85 khata No.126 total measuring 73 kanals 13 marlas since the time of their forefathers. Since the defendants having no right, title or interest in the suit land, being strong persons, intend to take illegal possession of the disputed land by way of raising construction, so this necessitated the institution of the present suit. Upon notice, the defendants, in their joint written statement, have resisted the present suit on the ground of maintainability and cause of action. On merits, the defendants have denied the possession of the plaintiffs over the area of khasra No.59/12 and have averred that there were fencing wall, Chabutra and room on the suit property in khasra No.59/12 and the plaintiffs deliberately did not mention about the aforesaid construction at the time of institution of the suit, whereas the defendants while appearing in the Court, submitted the site plan dated 21.3.1993 and depicted the construction raised by them over the disputed land for a considerable period. Lastly, it was averred that one Smt. Bhuri was missing for the last 70 years and the defendants were collateral of said Bhuri. The remaining allegations contained in the plaint were denied and they also prayed for dismissal of the suit. After evaluating the evidence led by the respective parties, the Courts below arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not proved to be in possession of the suit property and accordingly dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decrees of the Courts below, the plaintiffs have filed this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that on the date of institution of the present suit i.e 22.3.1993, the plaintiffs had not been in possession of the suit land and RSA No.1543 of 2006(O&M) 3 therefore, the suit for permanent injunction is liable to be dismissed. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that in fact the appellants had come to Rewari on 19.3.1993 to institute the suit against the defendants as they intended to raise the construction over the disputed land. However, defendant No.1 met them at Rewari and assured them to compromise the matter and that he would not raise the construction over the disputed land and thereafter, the appellants returned to their village. However, defendant No.1 refused to honour the promise and by engaging 10-15 masons and labourers, the defendants raised the boundary wall and also constructed a Chhappar and a tin shed over the disputed land. Thereafter, the plaintiffs obtained a copy of the revenue record from the Patwari on 20.3.1993 and the suit was instituted on 22.3.1993 and in the meantime the defendants quickly raised construction on 21.3.1993. This aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is without any force. Admittedly, the civil suit was filed on 22.3.1993 and no such averment has been made by the appellants in the plaint. On the other hand, the stand taken by the defendants is that they had made construction many years ago and at that time the plaintiffs did not raise any objection. The matter in dispute is a question of fact which has been answered against the appellants. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. December 5, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE