RSA No. 633 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 633 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.03.2011. Ishro Devi .......Appellant Vs. Ramji Lal and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. M.P.S.Chandel, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from cutting and removing the trees from the suit property. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that Rattan Singh had 1/9th share in the suit property. Plaintiff was the widow of said Rattan Singh. Rattan Singh had also executed a Will dated 19.12.2000 in favour of the plaintiff. Mutation was sanctioned on the basis of the said Will in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants were threatening to cut and remove the trees from the land, owned by the plaintiff. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that Rattan Singh had 1/9th share in the suit property, after the death of his father Data Ram. Plaintiff was not the widow of Rattan RSA No. 633 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Singh. Rattan Singh had not executed any Will in favour of the plaintiff. The order, vide which the mutation was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff, had been stayed by the Collector, Yamuna Nagar in an appeal. Defendants were the natural heirs of Rattan Singh and were in possession of the suit property. Plaintiff was the wife of Pritam Singh and hence she could not claim herself to be the widow of Rattan Singh. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the present suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 25.5.2004, Civil Judge (Junior Division) dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree were upheld, in appeal filed by the plaintiff, by District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 7.6.2007. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiff was that she was the sole legal heir of deceased Rattan Singh, being his widow. However, the plaintiff admitted in her cross-examination that she was RSA No. 633 of 2011 (O&M) -3- married to Pritam Singh. She had performed court marriage with Rattan Singh. The plaintiff, however, failed to produce on record any document to establish her plea that she had performed court marriage with Rattan Singh. Moreover, the plaintiff failed to establish that she had got a decree of divorce from Pritam Singh, with whom she was married. Plaintiff also failed to prove on record the alleged Will executed by Rattan Singh in her favour. In these circumstances, the courts below rightly held that the plaintiff had failed to prove her case. As per the copy of Jamabandi on record, plaintiff was not reflected to be in possession of the suit property. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 15, 2011 Gurpreet