IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 3780 of 2002 Date of Decision: 12.5.2009 Om Parkash (since deceased) through his L.Rs. and others. ....... Appellants through Shri R.K.Battas and Shri H.R.Bhardwaj, Advocates. Versus Managing Committee, Saralia Vaish Hindi Mahajani School (Regd.),Ambala City and another. ....... Respondent no.1 through Shri C.B.Goel, Advocate with Shri Nitin Jain and Shri Manoj Sharma, Advocates. Respondent no.2 through Shri V.K.Jindal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 31.8.1999 and 3.6.2002 passed respectively by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge,Ambala (referred to R.S.A.No.3780 of 2002 -2- .... hereinafter as `the First Appellate Court'). The plaintiff-respondent no.1 filed a suit for permanent injunction against Kashmiri Lal (since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives) and three others, namely, Om Parkash and Tek Chand, his sons and one Kartara (since deceased and now represented by his son- Faquira, respondent no.2 herein) to restrain them from raising any construction over the suit property and cutting & removing the trees which were standing thereon. It was pleaded that respondent no.1 was owner of the land comprised in khasra no.498, measuring 39 kanals 9 marlas. Kartara, father of respondent no.2, who was in cultivating possession thereof, had been regularly defaulting in payment of batai or chakota to respondent no.1 and he had further sub-let the suit land. The ejectment proceedings were initiated and are pending before the revenue authorities and Kashmiri Lal, Om Parkash and Tek Chand, who were arrayed as defendant nos. 1 to 3, were threatening to raise construction over the suit land and also to remove the trees standing thereon. With the aforesaid pleadings, respondent no.1 had prayed for permanent injunction. Kashmiri Lal, Om Parkash and Tek Chand, in their written statement, contested the suit and pleaded their possession over the suit land without any objection from any quarter for the last more than 25 years and set up a plea of adverse possession. It was averred that the construction over the suit land existed much prior to the filing of the suit and that the trees had been planted by them and, therefore, respondent no.1 could not R.S.A.No.3780 of 2002 -3- .... restrain them from cutting the same. It was also averred that they were in possession of the suit land since 1967 and had made substantial improvement thereon. In his written statement, Kartara had pleaded that respondent no.1 was not owner of the suit land which vested with Saralia Vaish Sabha Hindi Mahajani School which was a trust controlled by Sita Ram. It was further pleaded that he was a tenant over the agricultural land under the said Sabha represented by Sita Ram, but was not a tenant over the land which was `Tall' and that khasra no. 498 covered the building and other constructions under possession of different persons who had no concern with him. It was averred that he had no connection with Kashmiri Lal, Om Parkash and Tek Chand and had not sublet the suit land to them. During the pendency of the suit, Kashmiri Lal and Kartara, who were impleaded as defendant no.1 and defendant no.4, respectively, died and their legal representatives were brought on record. On the pleadings of the parties, as many as twelve issues were framed by trial Court, who, after appraisal of the entire evidence on record, decreed the suit with costs and restrained the defendants therein from raising any construction on the suit land and from cutting the trees standing thereon. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, two separate appeals were filed, one by the present appellants and another by respondent no.2, which were dismissed by the First Appellate Court while affirming the findings recorded therein. R.S.A.No.3780 of 2002 -4- .... Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. While assailing the findings recorded in the impugned judgments, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants had absolutely no concern with khasra no.498 which was the subject-matter of the suit. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that he has the authority to state categorically on behalf of the appellants that they have no concern with khasra no.498 and they would have no objection if the decrees passed by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court in favour of respondent no.1 are executed qua this khasra number. In response to the above statement, learned counsel for respondent no.1 contended that the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellants is acceptable to him. He, thus, submitted that respondent no.1 is satisfied with the above statement and the decrees passed in its favour by the Courts below qua khasra no.498 shall be executed. In this view of the matter, there is no necessity of going into the merits of the case and the appeal is disposed of on the strength of the statements which have been made by the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent no.1, implying thereby that the finding regarding sub-letting of the suit land, which has been made against the appellants would also be of no consequence. From the above, it is clear that they have no concern with khasra no.498. As a direct consequence thereof, respondent no.1 shall be entitled to execute the decrees in question qua khasra no.498 without any hindrance from the appellants. Since the connected appeal (R.S.A.No.4202 of 2002) has also R.S.A.No.3780 of 2002 -5- .... been filed by respondent no.2 herein against the same very judgments and decrees, it is made clear that the decrees in question shall be executable qua the present appellants without any hindrance by them. The appeal of respondent no.2 is being decided separately. May 12,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge