R.S.A. No.2478 of 2009 (O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A. No.2478 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:October 07, 2009 Rakesh Kumar and another ---Appellants versus Sharda Devi and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. C.L.Verma,Advocate, for the appellants *** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nawanshahar vide judgment and decree dated 22.4.2006 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Nawanshahar vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:- “The facts, briefly put are that plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering R.S.A. No.2478 of 2009 (O&M) {2} in his possession and from dispossessing him forcibly and illegally from the suit property. The plaintiff averred that the grandfather of plaintiff No. 1 and husband of plaintiff no. 2 had taken the suit property on rent at the rate of Rs. 4/- per month from forefathers of Ravinder Nath, Manohar Lal and Baij Nath and that after the death of the forefather Ram Saran Dass, his grand sons namely Ravinder Nath, Manohar lal and Baij Nath have been receiving rent from father of plaintiff no. 1 and had been issuing receipts occasionally. It is averred that after death of Om Parkash, father of plaintiff no. 1, it is the plaintiffs, who are in possession of the suit property on rent at the rate of Rs. 4/- per month and have been using suit property for tethering cattle etc. and that there is a tin shed and a Khurli in the suit property and the plaintiffs had also installed a 'toka' machine in the same. The plaintiffs have asserted that after death of Om Parkash, the defendants have refused to accept the rent after 30.7.1978 and have started threatening the plaintiffs to dispossess them from the suit property. The plaintiffs thus prayed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from doing so. 3. The defendant filed the written statement, wherein several preliminary objections, as regards suppression of material facts; maintainability etc. have been raised. On merits, all the material averments of the plaint have been denied. The defendants have taken a stand that in fact the predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiff occupied the first floor of a building, R.S.A. No.2478 of 2009 (O&M) {3} which previously existed upon a portion of the suit property and had fallen down about 25-26 years back and thereafter neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessors-in-interest came into possession over the same and that plaintiffs have forcibly installed a toka machine, which does not prove possession of the plaintiffs. The defendants have asserted that in fact Baij Nath Suri is residing in foreign country and that it is the defendant, who would suffer irreparable loss and have thus prayed for dismissal of the suit.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as claimed? OPP (2)Whether the plaintiffs are barred by their act anc conduct to file the present suit? OPD (3)Relief.” After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming themselves to be tenants over the property in dispute. However, the receipts produced on record by the appellants relate to the payment of rent with regard to Chaubara. As per the statement of DW-1-Baij Nath, Chaubara in question was no longer in existence and had been demolished. The plaintiffs claimed that they were in possession of the plot in dispute and were tethering their cattle in the suit property and had a tin shed and khurli and had installed a toka machine in the suit property. In these R.S.A. No.2478 of 2009 (O&M) {4} circumstances, courts below had rightly held that the suit of the plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed as the receipts produced on record regarding the payment of rent relate to the chaubara and not to the open plot. From the fact that the plaintiffs were tethering their cattle or were using the open plot it cannot be said that they were in possession of the suit property in exclusion to any body else. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence on record have given a finding of fact that the plaintiffs were 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 appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2009 PARAMJIT