C.M.No.4692-C of 2010 and 1 RSA No.1417 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M.No.4692-C of 2010 and RSA No.1417 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on Oct 25 ,2010. Palo Devi --Applicant/appellant vs. Sneh Lata and others -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.J.S.Saneta, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant. Mr.Jagdish Manchanda,Advocate,for the respondents Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, The plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned first Appellate Court by which the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court has been reversed and the suit filed by plaintiff has been dismissed. The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction claiming herself to be the owner in possession of the house in dispute and the defendants to be totally strangers, who were sought to be restrained from interfering in her possession and dispossessing her forcibly and illegally. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 filed their joint written statement in which ownership of the plaintiff over the house in dispute was denied. It was rather alleged that she is a tenant in two rooms in the northern side of the house in question and defendant No.3. is a tenant C.M.No.4692-C of 2010 and 2 RSA No.1417 of 2010 (O&M) of defendant No.1. in one room towards eastern southern corner and rest of the two rooms are in possession of defendant No.1. It was further averred that the house in dispute is situated in the abadi deh of village Ismailabad in which water and electricity connection vide account No.SS19/0855 is in the name of the husband of the defendant. It was also averred that the possession of two rooms which is in possession of the plaintiff shall be taken in due course of law as the plaintiff has not paid the rent. The plaintiff filed the replication and on the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 20.2.2006. The learned trial Court decreed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff is admittedly in possession even of two rooms, therefore, the defendant cannot forcibly dispossess her. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, the defendant filed the first appeal in which the learned first Appellate Court had recorded firm finding of fact that the plaintiff herself admitted about the ownership of the husband of the defendant over the house in dispute on which she had claimed herself to be a tenant and could not lead any documentary evidence to prove her title over the property in dispute which is allegedly purchased by her from the husband of the defendant for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. It was also observed that insofar as her possession over two rooms as a tenant is concerned, a statement has been made by the defendants that possession shall taken from her by them of the said property in accordance with law. Thus, the case set up by the plaintiff that she is owner of the property in dispute was not found proved before the learned first Appellate Court and possession of the plaintiff over two rooms as a tenant was not sought to be interfered because a statement is made by the defendants that they would not interfere in her possession otherwise than in due course of law. Thus, to my mind, the plaintiff is left with no grievance. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, vehemently argued that this Court is only concerned with the possession of the plaintiff and once the possession is admitted by the C.M.No.4692-C of 2010 and 3 RSA No.1417 of 2010 (O&M) defendants, the Court should have granted injunction as prayed for. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in normal circumstances the point put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellant would be of a substance, but in a case where the plaintiff has come to the Court seeking injunction on the basis of title and has failed to prove the same, no injunction can be granted in such circumstances. He has submitted that as regard possession of the plaintiff over two rooms is concerned, they are not disturbing the same otherwise than in due course of law and as the plaintiff is not in possession over rest of the property, namely, one room is in possession of defendant No.3 and two rooms are in possession of defendant No.1, therefore, no case is made out for grant of injunction and the learned first Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record from which I have found that the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands as she had claimed herself to be the owner of the property in dispute, whereas there is no cogent documentary evidence available on record to prove her title over the property in dispute. As regards their possession, the defendants have admitted that she is in possession of two rooms of the house in dispute as a tenant and since she has not paid the rent, therefore, they would take appropriate legal action in accordance with law. Meaning thereby, they would not disturb her possession otherwise than in due course of law insofar as two rooms are concerned. As a matter of fact, no question of law, much-less substantial has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant who had tried to improve her case by filing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for the purpose of leading additional evidence. The said application is perused and the documents attached there-with are considered by this Court. The first document (Annexure A-1) is an order of learned Civil Court on a suit filed by the plaintiff against the Electricity Department for ad-interim mandatory injunction directing the respondents to provide electricity and water connection C.M.No.4692-C of 2010 and 4 RSA No.1417 of 2010 (O&M) and second document (Annexure A-2) is the receipt issued by the Haryana State Electricity Board. These two documents do not advance the case of the plaintiff for the reason that the plaintiff had projected before the Civil Court that Civil Suit No.464 of 2005 (present suit) has been decreed in her favour whereas the position is now otherwise because Civil suit No.464 of 2005 has been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court by way of impugned judgment and decree. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present appeal and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. Oct 25,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge