RSA No. 896 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 896 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.02.2011. Ravinder Kumar and another .......Appellants Vs. Rajiv Kumar and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Parminder Singh Kanwar, Advocate and Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the appellants. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction qua land measuring 7 Kanals 9 Marlas bearing Khasra Nos. 26//17/2 min north (5-8), 19/2 min (2-1) situated in village Dialpura. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that earlier Guran Ditta, their father was in possession of the suit property. After the death of Guran Ditta on 3.6.2001, plaintiffs came in possession of the suit property. Plaintiffs had raised construction over the suit land. Defendant No.1 alleged that he had purchased the suit land from defendant No.2. However, defendant No.2 was not in possession of the suit land nor she was competent to sell the same to defendant No.1. Hence, suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiffs. RSA No. 896 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Defendants No. 1 to 6, in their written statement, denied that Guran Dittan was in possession of the suit land. It was averred that the entries in the revenue record were not correct as per actual position at the spot. Defendant No.1 had sold land measuring 2 Kanals out of land bearing Khasra No. 26//17/2 to Rajiv Kumar, defendant No.1 vide sale deed dated 8.8.2001. Out of the said land, defendant No.1 had sold 1 Kanals of land to Puran Singh vide sale deed dated 7.9.2001. Defendant No.1 further sold 14 Marlas of land out of Khasra No. 26//17/2 to Kaushalya Rani vide sale deed dated 11.9.2001. Sanjiv Kumar had sold land measuring 14 Marlas out of Khasra No. 26//17/2 to Kaushalya Rani vide sale deed dated 20.11.2001. Sanjiv Kumar and Kaushalya Rani had sold land measuring 1 Kanal to Mukhtiar Singh vide sale deed dated 20.11.2001. All the vendees had not been impleaded as a party in the suit. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 4.11.2009, Civil RSA No. 896 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Judge (Junior Division), Patti dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran vide judgment and decree dated 10.1.2011. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing the learned counsels for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiffs is that they were owners in possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 26//17/2min north (5-8), 19/2min (2-1). In support of their case, plaintiffs proved on record, copies of jamabandies for the year 1972-73 and 1977-78. However, the said jamabandies do not support the case of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are not described to be owners in possession of the khasra numbers in dispute in the jamabandies for the year 1972-73 and 1977-78, which have been placed on record as Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2. Hence, the suit of the plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed as the plaintiffs had failed to establish their possession over the suit property. In these circumstances, the courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in this case. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 22, 2011 Gurpreet