RSA No.364 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 364 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 15, 2009 Balbir Singh and others ...........Appellants Versus Municipal Corporation and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.R.C.Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mrs.Balwinder Kaur,Advocate for the appellants. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 2.4.2008. The appeal filed by plaintiffs was dismissed by the District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. The facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional District Judge in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment, read as under:- “ 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit on the plea that they were the owners and in possession in equal shares of land/house shown in red in the site plan and marked by letters ABCD since the time of their forefathers. The boundaries were shown in the plan. It was pleaded that the land was part of their house and it was being used for tethering cattle. A room, tin shed was in existence and the plaintiffs were using it as owner since the time of their forefathers. It was pleaded that in 1982 the defendants tried to RSA No.364 (O&M) 2 dispossess them from a part of the house and taking a plea that the plaintiffs had encroached over the land of the defendant and a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed and the Addl. District Judge, Faridabad had granted injunction and the matter was pending in the High Court. It was pleaded that the defendants had started threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from the other part of the house and wanted to demolish the construction. 3. The defendants took the plea that the property in khasra no.80 was owned and possessed by MCF. It was also pleaded tha the plaintiffs had not supplied the copy of the site plan. It was denied that the plaintiffs were owners and in possession of the property in suit. It was denied that there was any construction in existence, With respect to the earlier suit, it was pleaded that it was a matter of record. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs had no concern with the suit land which formed part of khasra no.80.” On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit property fully detailed in para no.1 of the plaint?OPP 2.If issue no.1 is proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of injunction as prayed for?OPP 3.Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4. Relief.” After hearing the learned Senior counsel for the appellants, I am RSA No.364 (O&M) 3 of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction that the defendants be restrained from demolishing construction raised by them on the property in dispute. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit property was within the red line of the village and, hence, it was not possible for them to prove on record any document of title. The defendants, on the other hand, in the written statement pleaded that the suit property formed part of Khasra No.80. The said fact was not controverted by the plaintiffs by filing a replication. It has been observed by the learned District Judge in the judgment that concededly the judgment Exhibit P2 did not relate to the property in dispute. The earlier litigation related to Khasra no.43/3. Plaintiffs had failed to establish that they were in possession of the suit property, whereas, defendants had proved on record copies of Khasra Girdawari as per which they were shown to be owner of Khasra No.80/2 measuring 16 marlas. Plaintiffs failed to establish as to how they came in possession of the suit property i.e. whether they had come in possession of the suit property on account of lease or as a tenant etc. It is the settled proposition of law that injunction cannot be granted against a true owner. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge December 15, 2009 arya RSA No.364 (O&M) 4 RSA No.364 (O&M) 5