RSA No.4611of 2009 (0&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on December 10,2009. Hazara Ram --Appellant vs. Suba Ram and others --Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.K.S.Cheema, Advocate, for the appellant Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) Defendant No.1. is in second appeal in a suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his physical possession and also from obstructing him from raising construction in plot marked ABCD shown in red colour in the site plan (Ex.P-1) bounded as West: House of Suba Ram- plaintiff; East: House of Hazara Ram and Rasta; North: Vacant plot and South : House of defendant No.2., situated in village Khawaspur (Piplanwala), Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur. The plaintiff claims his ownership over the plot in question by virtue of the sale deed dated 25.10.1966 having been purchased from Ujjagar Singh, for a consideration of Rs.98/-. In the year 1990, one Kartar Chand (since deceased ) tried to grab the property in dispute. Amar Chand RSA No.4611of 2009 (0&M) 2 son of Kartar Chand filed a Civil Suit against the plaintiff with the allegations that the property in dispute is common property of Harijans. The defendants also sought injunction against the plaintiff. The said Civil suit No.270 of 1990 was decided by the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Hoshiarpur, vide judgment and decree dated 18.8.1993, holding that the property indispute is owned by the plaintiff and the defendants had no locus standi to file the suit. Appeal against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Addl.District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide his judgment and decree dated 23.5.1995. No second appeal was filed and as such, the said judgment and decree dated 18.8.1993 passed by the trial Court became final. It is alleged that ownership of the property purchased by the plaintiff from Ujjagar Singh vide registered sale deed dated 25.10.1966 has been confirmed by the Civil Court vide its judgment and decree dated 18.8.1993, therefore, the defendants had no right to interfere in his possession and obstruct him in raising the construction. In the written statement, besides taking technical preliminary objections, it was alleged that finding of title in a previous suit for injunction are not binding in a subsequent suit for title. The identity of the property in dispute was alleged to be not correctly shown in the plaint. It was further alleged that the plaintiff wants to usurp part of the land under the path 8'-9'' wide leading from west to east and with one turn to north, in front of the houses of the defendants. It was also alleged that the parties are connected with each other through common ancestors. Replication to the written statement was filed. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court on 13.8.2001:- RSA No.4611of 2009 (0&M) 3 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties OPD 3. Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Relief: In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Ram Singh as PW-2, whereas the defendants examined Parkash Devi as DW-1, Ganpat as DW-2, Hazara Ram defendant as DW-3, and Sansar Singh as DW-4 and Gurbachan Dass as DW-5. The main issue is issue No.1 as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction. Both the Courts have given concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the property in dispute and, is entitled to injunction as prayed for. Still aggrieved, defendant No.1. has come in appeal in which the only argument raised by the learned counsel for defendant No.1/appellant is that the boundaries given in the sale deed do not tally with the boundaries given in the site plan (Ex. P1) on the basis of which the plaintiff is claiming his ownership. It is argued that in the sale deed, boundaries towards east are identified with rasta whereas in the site plan Ex.P-1 boundaries towards east are identified with house of Hazara Ram and rasta. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. There is no denial of the fact that defendant No.2 is son of RSA No.4611of 2009 (0&M) 4 Kartar Chand who had earlier filed a suit. The site plan filed in the earlier suit is exhibited as Ex.P-2. In the earlier suit, the plaintiff has been found to be owner of the property in dispute and the earlier site plan Ex.P-2 and the present site plan Ex.P-1 are the same. The judgment and decree passed in the earlier suit dated 18.8.1993 has become final. Therefore, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is not at all impressive for the purpose of raising substantial question of law. Hence, I do not find any merit in this appeal and as such the same is hereby dismissed though without any order as to costs. December 10,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge