R.S.A. No.1376 of 2007 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 1376 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.4.2011 Gurcharan Kaur .....Appellant Versus Jawala Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.M.L.Saggar, Senior Advocate,with Mr.G.S. Brar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Amit Jain,Advocate for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that she was in possession of the suit property. On the north side of the suit property, there was a plot of the plaintiff bearing khasra No. 141/21 (0-2) which was purchased by her vide sale deed dated 8.9.1997. Defendants were trying to take forcible possession of the plot bearing R.S.A. No.1376 of 2007 (O&M) 2 Khasra No. 141/21 from the plaintiff and she had filed a suit for permanent injunction. Defendants had admitted the claim of the plaintiff and the said suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff. Now the defendants were trying to take forcible possession of the suit property. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the plaintiff was neither owner nor in possession of the suit property. The suit property was bearing Khasra No. 340/1/2 and was situated on the western side of Khasra No.141/21. Plaintiff was owner of Khasra No. 141/21. Defendants had purchased Khasra No. 340/1/2 measuring 11 marla from Gurnam Singh and Bachna vide registered sale deed dated 21.1.1998. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the suit is maintainable?OPP 3. Whether the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule and by principle of estoppel? OPD 4. Relief.” The Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 10.8.2005 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 3.4.2007, the Additional District Judge(Adhoc), Fast Track Court dismissed the appeal. Hence the present appeal by the plaintiff. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that R.S.A. No.1376 of 2007 (O&M) 3 defendants were already in possession of 12.62 marlas of land. The portion marked `ABCD' in the site plan, Exhibit P1, was in possession of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the suit property, in fact, formed part of Khasra No. 340/1/2 and had been purchased by the defendants from its owners. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff has filed the present suit claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in her possession qua plot marked `ABCD' in the site plan bounded as under:- “East : 15' Plot of Daya Ram, West : 20' Plot of Haria, North : 11' Plot of Plaintiff. (Khasra No.141/21). South : 15' Kul.” Thus, on the northern side of the property in dispute is the property of the plaintiff bearing Khasra No.141/21. The case of the defendants is that, in fact, the suit property formed part of Khasra No. 340/1/2 purchased by them from its owners. Exhibit P1, site plan, however, does not depict the boundaries of the suit property as mentioned in the plaint. Admittedly, plaintiff had earlier filed civil suit No.84 of 1988 claiming relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants Jawala Singh and others from interfering in her peaceful possession qua Khasra No.141/21. In the said suit, the suit property in dispute was reflected as part of Khasra No.340/1/2. The certified R.S.A. No.1376 of 2007 (O&M) 4 copy of the site plan placed on record by the plaintiff in her earlier suit was proved on record in the present suit as Exhibit P3. A perusal of Exhibit P3 reveals that Khasra No. 141/21 adjoins Khasra No. 340/1/2 on the southern side. In the said site plan, the present suit property is not reflected to be in possession of the plaintiff. Plaintiff had failed to establish that she was owner in possession of Khasra No.340/1/2. Hence, suit of the plaintiff was liable to fail. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge April 26, 2011 arya