R.S.A.No. 932 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 932 of 2009 Date of decision: 20.10.2009 Harish Kumar ......Appellant Versus Shiv Lal and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs-Harish Kumar and Rajesh filed a suit for permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Mohindergarh vide judgment and decree dated 11.4.2007. In appeal filed by Harish Kumar, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the District Judge, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 4.11.2008. Hence, the present appeal. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 1 and 2 of its judgment, are as under:- R.S.A.No. 932 of 2009 2 “ The suit was brought by one Harish Kumar son of Lekh Ram (plaintiff No.1) and Rajesh son of Om Parkash (plaintiff No.2) impleading Shiv Lal and six others, the sons of Jug Lal (defendants No.1 to 7) for permanent injunction. Following is the pedigree-table (as per plaint) showing the relationship of the plaintiffs with the previous owners of the suit property measuring 10 bishwas comprised in ahata No.157 ghar No.272 situate in the area of village Chhitroli District Mohindergarh. Ram Sukh @ Ram Rattan | Hans Ram | Sheodatt | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Bharat Singh Lekh Ram | | -------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | Harish Kumar Phoolwati Omkaur Mamkaur | (plaintiff) | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | Omparkash Chandrawali Jai Singh Attar Singh Mant Lal | | Rajesh Kumar Sunil (plaintiff) As per averments in the plaint, the plaintiffs have been the owners in possession of this property since the time of their forefathers and the defendants, who have got no concern of the same, are bent upon to forcibly R.S.A.No. 932 of 2009 3 occupy the same and to raise construction there. Hence, prayer for a decree for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property and from raising construction there. 2. Defendants filed a joint written statement controverting the case of the plaintiffs. They asserted that they are the owners in possession of the suit property and the plaintiffs are bent upon to take forcible possession in the garb of the suit. According to them, Ram Sukh was not the father of Hans Ram and the name of his father, in fact, was Ram Rattan and the plaintiffs have got no relationship with said Ram Rattan and have wrongly described the name as Ram Rattan @ Ram Sukh in the pedigree-table. As per the version set up in the written statement, Hans Ram son of Ram Rattan had died during the life time of his father and Ram Rattan had no other child and died issueless and thereupon the suit property devolved on his brothers Tirkha and Ami Chand in equal shares. Ami Chand also died issueless and the defendants are the owners in possession of this property being the heirs of Tirkha. They also asserted that they have constructed a room and have been using this property as a nohra. It was also disclosed that defendant R.S.A.No. 932 of 2009 4 Badlu had earlier instituted a suit titled as Badlu versus Amar Singh etc. (Civil suit No.931 of 1992) and the same was dismissed. However, the appeal preferred by him was accepted on 12.6.1999 and the present defendants were declared to be owners in possession of the property in dispute. In addition, it was pleaded that the plaintiffs have no locus standi and cause of action and are estopped from filing the suit and the suit is time barred. The defendants also claimed special costs under Section 35-A CPC.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit property and is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his own act and conduct? OPD 6. Relief. ” R.S.A.No. 932 of 2009 5 After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction to the effect that the defendants be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession. Learned District Judge in the impugned judgment has observed that it had come in evidence that one of the defendants had earlier instituted a suit against Amar Singh and others regarding property in dispute and the same was dismissed. However, in appeal filed by the present defendant No.3 Badan Singh, his suit for permanent injunction was decreed and the defendants in the said suit were restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession. In these circumstances, the Courts below after appreciating the evidence on record have given a finding of fact that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property. The said finding of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE October 20, 2009 anita