RSA No.2311 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.6969-70-C of 2010 & RSA No.2311 of 2009 Decided on : 15.11.2010 Ram Narain ... Appellant versus Jeet Singh @ Harjit Singh & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present : Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate for the appellant. **** Gurdev Singh, J. CM No.6969-C of 2010 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 29 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CM No.6970-C of 2010 For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed. Persons mentioned in para No.2 are directed to be impleaded as LRs of respondent No.1 – Sh. Jeet Singh. Registry is directed to make necessary corrections in the memo of parties subject to all just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.2311 of 2010 The appellant/plaintiff- Ram Narian has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2009 RSA No.2311 of 2009 (O&M) -2- passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar vide which the first appeal preferred by him against the judgment and decree dated 26.05.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Jalandhar dismissing his suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession over the property measuring 18 marlas bearing khasra No.728 min situated in village Daulatpur, Jalandhar, was dismissed. The plaintiff pleaded in his plaint that the land in dispute is the ownership of Sant Baba Marru Dass and the possession thereof was delivered to him by Mahant Piara Dass who was Mahant of Samad Baba Maru Dass and he is coming in possession thereof. Previously, civil suit was filed by Jeet Singh – defendant for permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division Jalandhar on 27.02.2002 as defendant No.1 was not able to prove that he was in possession of the land in dispute. Thereafter he filed other civil suit in which interim injunction was granted restraining defendants No.1 & 2 from interfering in his possession. The defendants tried to commit the breach of that order. The matter was reported to the police. However, defendant No.3, who is an ASI in police, joined hands with other defendants No.1 & 2 and obtained his signatures and that of his wife on some papers. All the defendants tried to dispossess him forcibly from the property in dispute but they could not succeed due to timely intervention of the respectable of the locality. Therefore, he filed suit for permanent injunction. The suit was contested by respondents No.1 & 2. In their RSA No.2311 of 2009 (O&M) -3- written statement, they denied all the contentions of the plaintiff and pleaded that the plaintiff is their brother and their father Kabal Singh was coming in possession of the land in dispute, who died interstate. After his death, land was inherited by all of them by way of natural succession. After coming into possession of this land, they were enjoying the fruits thereof as owners. In replication to the written statement, the plaintiff denied all the contentions raised therein and reiterated his averments made in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following issues: 1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? Opportunity 2.Whether the present suit is not maintainable? OPD 3.Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD 4.Whether the present suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5.Whether no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff to file the present suit? OPD 6.Whether the site plan attached with the plaint is wrong? OPD 7.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 8.Whether the plaintiff has failed to affix the proper court fee? OPD 9.Relief. RSA No.2311 of 2009 (O&M) -4- To succeed in the suit, the appellant/plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, Gurmail Singh as PW-2 and Mohinder Singh as PW-3. On the other hand, defendant – Gurdial Singh examined himself as DW-1 and Harbhajan Singh as DW-2. On the basis of evidence so produced and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court decided issue No.1 against the plaintiff and all other issues in his favour and resultantly dismissed his suit. As already stated above, the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the evidence on record, it has been found that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appellant / plaintiff failed to prove that he was in exclusive possession of the land in dispute. The defendants claimed possession over the property on the basis of natural succession of Kabal Singh and after his death, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 & 2 are coming in possession thereof. When the plaintiff failed to prove his exclusive possession, there is no ground for granting such perpetual injunction. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. November 15, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH) sonia JUDGE