R.S.A. No. 647 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 647 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.3.2009 Veena .......... Appellant Versus Anil & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 10.6.2008 and 31.10.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction stands dismissed. The plaintiff brought a suit for permanent injunction on the plea that she was in possession of the property in dispute as owner under the agreement to sell vide which consideration amount stood paid by predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff about 10/12 years back. The plea that she was entitled to protect her possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act was also taken. The suit was contested wherein a plea was taken that plaintiff was put in possession as tenant of the property but she failed to pay the rent and when she was asked to pay the arrears of rent, she filed the present false R.S.A. No. 647 of 2009 2 and frivolous suit by claiming herself to be owner. Other averments in the suit were denied. The learned Courts below have non-suited the plaintiff appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that appeal raises an important substantial question of law :- “When the legal possession of a party stood proved could the relief of injunction be denied ?” In support of the substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that in view of the positive stand taken by the defendant that the plaintiff was in possession as a tenant then the legal possession of the plaintiff over the property in dispute stood established and, therefore, the learned Courts below were not justified in declining the relief of injunction. The Courts below at best could have granted decree for injunction restraining the defendant / respondent from dispossessing the plaintiff appellant except with due process of law. However, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant already stands rejected by the learned lower appellate Court in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Soham Singh and another v. Jhaman and others 1986 PLJ 168 (P&H)and shankar V. Ram Kala and others 1986 PLJ 459 (P&H). The findings recorded by the learned lower appellate Court read as under :- “14. As mentioned above, plaintiff has come to the R.S.A. No. 647 of 2009 3 Court on the basis of her title to the suit property, which she has utterly failed to prove on the record. Besides that plaintiff was being forcibly dispossess from the suit property by the defendants. In case Sohan Singh and another Versus Jhaman and others 1986 PLJ 168 (P&H), it has been laid down that in case the plaintiff comes to the Court on the basis of his title to the suit property, other than his possession thereto, and he failed to prove the same at the trial, then the relief of permanent injunction on the basis of his possession alone will have to be ordinarily refused unless there was a further specific finding by the Court that he was being forcibly dispossessed by the defendants. In case Shankar Versus Ram Kala and others 1986 PLJ 459 (P&H). In view of the findings of the learned lower appellate Court the substantial question of law is answered against the appellant plaintiff. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is ordered to be dismissed in limine. 20.3.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE