RSA No. 1820 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1820 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.4.2011. Sukhdev Singh & others .......Appellants Vs. Major Singh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. S.C.Thatai, Advocate for the appellants. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that Piara Singh father of the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2 and husband of defendant No.3 was owner in possession of the plot measuring 400 square yards described in the head note of the plaint. In a family settlement in June 1990, the plot in question was divided into three portions. One portion measuring 133 square yards came to the share of the plaintiff. Plaintiff constructed his house on the said property. Piara Singh had died on 23.7.2005. After his death, defendant No.1 and 2 along with two-three persons caused injuries on the person of the plaintiff and tried to dispossess him from the suit land. Plaintiff had filed a complaint against the defendants No. 1 and 2 with the police of Police Post Dugri, Ludhiana on 23.7.2005 but no criminal case had been registered against defendants No. 1 and 2. Proceedings under RSA No. 1820 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were pending against the defendants. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that Piara Singh was owner of the plot in question measuring 400 square yards. Piara Singh had issued a public notice in Daily Ajit, Jalandhar on 19.8.2004, disinheriting the plaintiff from his movable and immovable property. The suit property was in possession of the defendants. Piara Singh had executed a Will qua the suit property in favour of his wife Mohinder Kaur. The pendency of the proceedings under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were admitted. It was denied that the suit property had been partitioned in the month of June 1990 or that the plaintiff had constructed his house in the portion measuring 133 square yards. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable ?OPD 3. Relief.” Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 18.5.2010, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 10.1.2011. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and the defendants were restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and from demolishing the construction existing thereon. Hence, the RSA No. 1820 of 2011 (O&M) -3- present appeal by the defendants. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, Piara Singh was owner of land measuring 400 square yards. Plaintiff, in order to prove his case, himself appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and examined Kulwinderpal Singh as PW-3. Mohinder Kaur-defendant appeared in the witness box as DW-1. The said witness is the mother of the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2. In her cross examination, she deposed that earlier the suit property was divided into four parts but after the death of her son Prithipal Singh, the suit property was divided into three equal parts. It has been noticed by the learned Additional District Judge in para 16 of his judgment that as per the site plan (Ex. P-1) three separate houses were in existence and the same were independent of each other. The said houses had independent entry from the southern side. Two houses out of the same are admittedly in possession of defendants No. 1 and 2. The plea taken by the defendants that the plaintiff had been disinherited by Piara Singh from his movable and immovable property was not established by defendants. Defendants also failed to prove the Will, alleged to have been executed by Piara Singh in favour of Mohinder Kaur. In these circumstances, the learned trial court had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 28, 2011 RSA No. 1820 of 2011 (O&M) -4- Gurpreet