R.S.A. No.1112 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.1112 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.3.2009 M/s Raj Mechanical Industries ....Appellant Versus Durga Dass ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Arvind Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is plaintiff's second appeal directed against the judgment of the learned first Appellate Court dated 15.10.2008. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter seeking to restrain the respondent or his agents, employees and associates from interfering into his peaceful possession. It was pleaded by him that the plaintiff firm is a registered partnership firm and is owner in possession of the land which has been detailed in the suit and that the respondent without any right, title or interest in the suit property is threatening to occupy a portion of the same. The prayer for injunction was made in these circumstances. Upon notice, the respondent appeared and contested the suit to contend that the appellant is not in possession of the suit R.S.A. No.1112 of 2009 (O&M) -2- property and that Inder Mohan, Balraj Dhanda and Ajit Kumar were the owners of the land wherein they had developed a colony known as Vidya Vihar Colony by carving out 504 plots in the year 1985 and the aforesaid persons had sold these plots through another company dealing in real estate and the suit property was agreed to be sold to him vide agreement dated 28.12.1990 and as a measure of part performance of the agreement he was put in possession. The parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the grant of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 4. Relief. On the basis of evidence before it, the learned trial Court concluded that the agreement to sell in favour of the respondent was not a valid document as Inder Mohan, who is the executor of the agreement to sell on behalf of the vendor, which is a firm, was not competent to do so as only the firm could have agreed to sell the same in favour of the respondent. It also concluded on the basis of evidence that the appellant firm is the owner of the suit property and the respondent had no right, title or interest to interfere in the same and therefore decreed the suit. In appeal, the findings of the learned trial Court were upset, which has resulted in the filing of the present regular second R.S.A. No.1112 of 2009 (O&M) -3- appeal wherein the learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the findings of the first Appellate Court has contended that even though the factum of possession was held to be against the appellant, yet the relief of possession ought to have been granted to him in view of the fact that the learned trial Court had concluded that the appellant was owner of the property and that the agreement to sell in favour of the respondent on the basis of which he was claiming possession was not a valid document. It was contended that the Court has ample power to consider the evidence even if there are no pleadings to that effect and also to grant the necessary relief even if the same has not been prayed for in the main suit. Reliance was placed on S.Sukhpal Singh v.The State of Punjab through Deputy Director of Agriculture, Nabha, District Patiala 1983 P.L.R. 517 and Rupadhar Pujari v. Gangadhar Bhatra (2004) 7 S.C.C. 654. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the records. The prayer made by the appellant in the suit was for injunction. No other facts were pleaded except for the fact that he was the owner of the suit property and the respondent was threatening to interfere in his possession. The respondent, on the other hand, had set up a plea that the agreement in his favour had been validly executed by Inder Mohan and pursuant to the part performance of the agreement he had been put in possession. The first Appellate Court concluded on the basis of evidence that the possession was concededly that of the respondent. The findings of fact which were established by the first Appellate Court could not be offset by the R.S.A. No.1112 of 2009 (O&M) -4- learned counsel for the appellant by showing any evidence to the contrary. His plea that even if there were no pleadings yet the evidence which has come on record could be looked into to grant him the relief which he had not even prayed for in the event of his being held to be owner of the property, is erroneous. It is the settled principle of law that no amount of evidence can be looked into if there are no specific pleadings to that effect. The aforesaid law has steadfastly held good so far. The respondent had pleaded that he had been put in possession of the suit property as a measure of part performance of the agreement, which fact has been established by the first Appellate Court. In this view of the matter the relief of possession can be granted to the appellant in accordance with law and the same cannot be granted to him in the present proceedings where no such prayer had been made. In an injunction suit only the factum of possession had to be seen, which fact was determined against the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has made much issue about the validity of the agreement to sell, but a perusal of the impugned judgment shows that no such prayer was made in the suit to get the agreement declared as null and void. Since there were no pleadings, no such issue was framed. The material relied upon by the learned trial Court is merely incidental to the pleadings and it was clearly in error when it based its finding on such a material which it was precluded from looking into the absence of any pleadings and challenge to the agreement to sell. The approach of the first Appellate Court cannot be faulted with in view of the above discussion. R.S.A. No.1112 of 2009 (O&M) -5- Since the finding of fact regarding possession has been determined against the appellant and no substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen for the determination of this Court, the appeal is totally devoid of any merit and is dismissed. 10.3.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss