R.S.A.No. 638 of 2011(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 638 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 13.5.2011 Tahal Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Pala Ram .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction qua plot/ bara measuring 1314 square feet. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the bara in dispute and defendants had no concern with the same. Earlier a dispute had arisen between the plaintiff and the gram panchayat and the plaintiff had filed civil suit No.317 dated 10.8.2004 against the gram panchayat and Dayala, member, gram panchayat. At that time, the gram panchayat wanted to encroach upon the bara in dispute in connection with construction R.S.A.No. 638 of 2011(O&M) 2 of a drain. The matter was compromised in the Court and the suit was disposed of in terms of compromise. Now the defendants were threatening to encroach upon the suit property by raising construction. The defendants, in their written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property. The earlier decree had been obtained by the plaintiff by playing fraud and the same was not binding on the defendants. The defendants were not a party to the said suit. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession over the suit land as detailed in para No.1 of the plaint? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 4.Whether the plaintiff is liable to be estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from the court? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 7. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 20.3.2010. Aggrieved by the said R.S.A.No. 638 of 2011(O&M) 3 judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Learned first Appellate Court has held that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. The said fact was evident from the decree Ex.P-3 passed in Civil Suit No.317 of 2004 decided on 16.10.2004. The said suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed as per the compromise effected between the parties to the suit. The suit had been filed by the plaintiff alleging that the gram panchayat wanted to construct a drain along with the plot in dispute by encroaching upon the same. The plaintiff agreed to part with 9” of land, which was in his possession, for construction of the drain. Although the present appellants were not a party to the said suit but it was evident from the decree Ex.P-3 that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction was liable to be decreed. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 13, 2011 anita