RSA No.4143 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4143 of 2009 Date of Decision: 10.05.2010. Shangara Ram .……Appellant Versus Jagan Nath ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the appellants. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) This is second appeal by defendant Shangara Ram. Respondent-Jagan Nath filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from dispossessing the plaintiff from suit property measuring 2 ½ marlas owned and possessed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that he purchased the suit property from Mohan Singh vide sale deed dated 12.04.1962 for Rs.99/- and since then plaintiff is residing in the suit property. Defendant has no right, title or interest therein, but the defendant tried to take illegal possession thereof. The defendant inter alia pleaded that towards north of the suit property, there is house of defendant. Defendant's father Munsha Singh had purchased the said property from Mohan Singh vide sale deed dated 26.08.1966 and the plaintiff under the garb of the suit wants to encroach upon the land of defendant. It was denied that plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar vide RSA No.4143 of 2009 -2- judgment and decree dated 10.02.2007 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. However, first appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 10.04.2009 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant concedes that in sale deed which was executed by Mohan Singh in favour of defendant's father, towards south of the property purchased, property of plaintiff Jagan Nath has been depicted. Thus defendant's own document reveals that plaintiff is owner in possession of the property lying towards south of the property of the defendant. In fact the defendant has also not claimed any right, title or interest in the suit property. The only grievance of the defendant is that under the garb of the suit, the plaintiff would encroach upon the defendant's property. However, to seek redressal of the said grievance, if the defendant has any cause of action, the defendant may, if so advised, take appropriate action in accordance with law against the plaintiff, but the said apprehension of the defendant is no ground to non-suit the plaintiff. The defendant's own document reveals that the suit property lying towards south of defendant's property is of the plaintiff. In addition to the aforesaid, learned counsel for defendant-appellant has shown a site plan dated 03.04.2003 got prepared by the defendant himself. Perusal thereof reveals that in between the property of the defendant and the property of the RSA No.4143 of 2009 -3- plaintiff, their lies some property of Bishan Chand, who purchased part thereof from the defendant and part thereof from the plaintiff. Since property of Bishan Chand lies between the properties of the parties, the plaintiff prima facie cannot encroach upon the property of the defendant unless the plaintiff also encroaches upon the property of the Bishan Chand lying in between the properties of the parties. In any event, if the plaintiff encroaches upon the property of the defendant, the defendant may avail of legal remedy in accordance with law. However, since the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property and the defendant has no right, title or interest therein, the suit of the plaintiff has been rightly decreed by the lower appellate Court. There is no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court so as to call for interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 10.05.2010. A. Kaundal