Regular Second Appeal No.2231 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2231 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 28.06.2010 Mukhtiar Singh ...... Appellant(s) VERSUS Smt.Sunder widow of Late Khilari ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.S.R.Hooda, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04.02.2010 passed by Addl. District Judge, Sonepat, dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant (herein referred as 'the plaintiff') against the judgment dated 07.04.2009, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat, dismissing his suit against the respondent-his mother Smt.Sunder widow of Late Khilari, resident of Mohalla Jatwara (Sunder Sawari) Sonepat, Tehsil and District Sonepat (herein referred as 'the defendant'). The plaintiff has set up his claim on the basis of possession whereas defendant has claimed that the father of the plaintiff had already expired and the plaintiff is living separately from her since 23.03.1998. The house was purchased by her husband in her name. On 23.03.1998, a family settlement was executed in between the plaintiff and the defendant in which the defendant was given the house in dispute as her share and now she is in Regular Second Appeal No.2231 of 2010 (O&M) 2 possession of the same. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and no cause of action from filing the present suit ? OPD 4. Relief. The trial Court dismissed the suit so as the appeal was also dismissed. The dispute is between the mother and the son. The plaintiff is neither the owner nor in possession of the property in dispute. It has been duly established from the record that he is living separately from his mother. In any case if he claims possession, even then he cannot be treated in possession in his own right as his status could not be treated better than that of a licencee. As such, he could not be granted any injunction. No substantial question of law arises in the case. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 28.06.2010 mamta-II