R.S.A. No. 3920 of 2002 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3920 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.1.2011 Harbans Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Charan Singh .......Respondent ********* CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Sandeep Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Charan Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction qua land bearing Khasra No.63//18 min (4-0). The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 3.8.1998. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 24.8.2002. Hence, the present appeal by defendants No.1 and 2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge in paras No.2 and 3 of its judgment, read as under :- R.S.A. No. 3920 of 2002 (O&M) 2 “ The brief facts culminating into filing the instant appeal are that Charan Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction against Harbans Singh and another to the effect that defendants be restrained from illegally and forcibly interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over land measuring 04 kanals bearing khasra no.63 R/18 min as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1988-89 situated at village Ladha Munda, Tehsil Batala. It was averred that plaintiff was in actual, physical, exclusive and cultivating possession of the suit land since long as a co-sharer/co-owner gair-maroosi. Plaintiff was entitled to remain in possession of the land in dispute until ejected in due course of law. Land in dispute formed a part of Shamlat Patti Nathu of village Ladha Munda and plaintiff having a large holding in the village had got a share in the Shamlat. The defendants had got no right, title or interest in the suit land. The defendants had got incorporated some wrong mutation entries in their favour on the basis of some alleged partition proceedings which were illegal null and void. The partition proceedings were yet not finalised as appeal was pending in the court of Collector, Batala who also granted a stay vide order dated 10.4.1991, which was still operative. The defendants being head strong persons had a political back and approach in police, taking the benefit of wrong mutation entries had illegally and forcibly threatened to interfere in the possession R.S.A. No. 3920 of 2002 (O&M) 3 of the plaintiff over the suit land without having recourse to law. The plaintiff had requested the defendants to abstain from their illegal and forcible act but they refused. Hence, the present suit. 3. The defendants filed the written statement by taking preliminary objections that suit was not maintainable; plaintiff had got no locus standi to file the suit. On merits, it was pleaded that plaintiff was not in cultivating possession as co- owner. Plaintiff moved the partition application in the court of A.C. 1st Grade, Batala titled as Sohan Singh etc. Vs. Jagir Singh in case no.31 of 02.2.1978. The name of plaintiff was at no.22 as applicant and said partition was completed on 25.9.1990 and was finalised and lastly instrument of partition was prepared. Possession was changed by delivery of possession vide report roznamcha no.227 dated 03.4.1991. According to report roznamcha and Naksha Jeem defendant no.1 was given possession of the suit property alongwith other land and mutation no.1223 of partition was also sanctioned. Since then defendants no.1 and 2 being father and son were in possession of the suit land. The entries were legal and valid and binding upon the plaintiff and the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of injunction. The delivery of possession took place much prior to the issuance of the stay order as alleged defendant no.1 was owner in possession of the suit land and story of threat was R.S.A. No. 3920 of 2002 (O&M) 4 baseless and imaginary. The remaining allegations were also denied and they prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is in possession of suit land as co- sharer/co-owner as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for ? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD. 5. Relief.” Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants were in possession of the suit land. The land in question had come to the appellants during partition proceedings and since then they were in peaceful possession of the suit land. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that as per the revenue record plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. Defendants were in possession of separate portion of land comprised in khasra No.63//18 min measuring 8 kanal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed the suit claiming permanent injunction that defendants be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession. In order to establish his case, plaintiff proved on record Ex.P-1 (copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1988-89). As per the same plaintiff Charan Singh is R.S.A. No. 3920 of 2002 (O&M) 5 in possession of Khasra No.63//18 min (4-0). Ex.P-2 is the copy of the khasra girdawari from 25.10.1989 to the year 1995. As per the same, plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. Ex.P-3 is the copy of the jamabandi for the year 1993. As per the same, defendant Harbans Singh is in possession of Khasra No.63//18 min (8-0). To the similar effect is Ex.D-4, copy of khasra girdawari from the year 1994 to 1998. A perusal of Ex.D-2 reveals that during partition proceedings the defendant Harbans Singh had got Khasra No.63//17 min (8-0) and Khasra No.63//18 min (8-0) 162/5/2 (3-8). It appears that out of khasra No.63/18 small portions of land have been carved out. Out of the said khasra number, plaintiff Charan Singh is in possession of 4 kanals of land whereas defendant Harbans Singh is in possession of 8 kanals of land. From the revenue record, available on the file, it is evident that the plaintiff and defendant Harbans Singh are in possession of separate portions of land. In these circumstances the courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 6, 2011 Anand