R.S.A.No. 1420 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1420 of 2007 Date of decision: 7.7.2009 Jag Ram Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Vijay Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sandeep Vermani, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Naveen Kaushik, Advocate, **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Vijay Singh filed a suit seeking decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his lawful possession and ownership. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Palwal vide judgment and decree dated 18.2.2005. Appeal filed by the plaintiff was partly decreed by the Additional District Judge (I), Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.2006 to the effect that defendants were R.S.A.No. 1420 of 2007 2 restrained from encroaching upon Ahata No.80, Ghar No. 126 as well as demolishing the same. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional District Judge (I), Faridabad in para Nos. 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment, are as under:- “2. Briefly stated, facts of the present plaintiff's case, as alleged are that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property marked by letters ABCD in the site plan attached, which is bearing Ahata No.80, Ghar No.126 situated in village Raipur. The defendants have got no right, title and interest in the suit property as the same is exclusively owned by the plaintiff. The defendants want to destroy the property of the plaintiff and its boundary wall without any right to do so. Hence, the present suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. 3. This suit was contested by the defendants on the grounds that the plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the suit property, rather the defendants are owners in possession of the suit property since the time of their ancestors and are using the same as their residence as well as their NOHRA. Neither the plaintiff nor his predecessor ever remained in possession of suit R.S.A.No. 1420 of 2007 3 property nor it is part of Ahata No.80 Ghar No.126. Plaintiff has no right, title and interest in the suit property. Thus, he had prayed for the dismissal of the present suit.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is lawful owners in lawful possession of ancestral gait marked with letters ABCD in the attached plan, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the property in dispute as alleged? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act, conduct, acquiescence to file the present suit as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the suit is speculative as alleged? OPD 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous as alleged? OPP 8. Relief. ” During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that although plaintiff had failed to prove that the suit property formed part of Ahata No.80, Ghar No.126, R.S.A.No. 1420 of 2007 4 marked by letters ABCD in the site plan , yet the lower appellate Court had partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the garb of the impugned judgment and decree, plaintiff may restrain the defendants from enjoying their own property. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the appellants is mis -founded. Vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.9.2006, passed by the Additional District Judge (I), Faridabad, the appeal filed by plaintiff-Vijay Singh was partly allowed and defendants-appellants have been restrained from encroaching upon Ahata No. 80, Ghar No.126 as well as demolishing the same. Undisputedly, the plaintiff is owner of Ahata No. 80, Ghar No.126. In these circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge (I), Faridabad had rightly restrained the defendants from encroaching upon Ahata No. 80, Ghar No.126, which was owned by the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 07, 2009 anita