CR No.2218/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2218/2010 Date of decision: 2.8.2011 Antu Ram ....................Petitioner v. Fakir Chand .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sharma,Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Ashok Khubbar,Advocate for the respondent. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Plaintiff/petitioner has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the orders dated 24.10.2009 and 3.3.2010 passed by learned Courts below, whereby his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed. Briefly noticed the facts of the case are that plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from interfering in his peaceful physical possession over one bara measuring 0 kanals 5 marla, comprised in khewat no.474, khatauni no.561, khasra no.141 situated within the abadi of Village Kotar Khana, Tehsil Jagadhari. It was case of the plaintiff that the suit property-bara was CR No.2218/2010 2 initially owned by one Jetha Ram, who was unmarried and had no child-male or female. As the plaintiff allegedly used to look after him and provide him all the amenities /services, said Jetha Ram had given the suit property to the plaintiff during his life time out of his sweet will and as such the petitioner/plaintiff came to be in possession of the suit property. It was alleged that defendant got mutated this bara in his name by mentioning his name as Fakirya instead of Fakir Chand and showing himself to be the son of aforesaid Jetha Ram, whereas the latter died unmarried and issueless. Alongwith the suit plaintiff/petitioner also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Upon notice, respondent/defendant filed written statement as well as reply to the stay application. It was case of the respondent/defendant that he was owner in possession of the suit property for the last more than 40 years and has constructed his residential house over it. It was denied that Jetha was owner of the plot in question. It was case of the defendant that the said plot was allotted to him by the Government. It was further case of the defendant that his mother was married with one Paitu Ram; he was born out of that wedlock; and that after the death of Paitu Ram his mother had got re- married with Jetha and he was brought up by Jetha. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Both the courts below on the basis of material available on record have found that plaintiff/petitioner has failed to show his CR No.2218/2010 3 ownership or possessory rights or that of Jetha over the property in question and that as per revenue record the defendant is owner in possession of the suit property. Further, it has rightly been held by the courts below that mere user by putting gohara, tethering cattle on vacant land does not confer any proprietary or possessory rights. I do not find any ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the courts below. Accordingly,finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. 2.8.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge