RSA No. 1818 of 2009. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1818 of 2009. Date of decision 27.08.2010. Paramjit Singh and others ...... Appellants. versus Surinder Singh ...... Respondent. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. Present : Mr. Kanwal Goel, Advocate for Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the appellants. K.C.PURI, J. This is an appeal directed by defendant/appellants against the judgment and decree dated 3.1.2009 passed by Shri A.K.Singla, Additional District Judge, Faridkot vide which the appeal preferred by the defendant/appellants against judgment and decree dated 16.11.2006 passed by Shri B.R.Garg, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot was dismissed. Briefly stated that plaintiff Surinder Singh has filed suit for injunction with the allegation that he is owner in possession of the suit property. The property was purchased by him through sale deed dated 20.10.1986. RSA No. 1818 of 2009. 2 Tejinder Singh filed Civil Suit No.110 dated 10.4.1975 for possession of the suit property and that suit was decided on 20.11.1976 thereafter Sodhi Tejinder Singh and his father filed appeal No.55 of 1977 and that appeal was also dismissed vide judgment dated 13.3.1978. Defendant claims themselves to be legal representatives of Sodhi Tejinder Singh. They have no right in the property. Notice of the suit was given to the defendant. All the defendant filed written statement taking preliminary objection that neither the plaintiff is the owner nor in possession of the suit property. Although previous suit against Parkash Chand and Sohan Lal was dismissed. The said Parkash Chand and Sohan Lal were in possession of 1/4th share of Khasra No.7518 along with the other persons who were tenants of the defendant. Parkash Chand and Sohan Lal leaving possession in favour of the defendant and the defendant became owner of the suit property. Following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property ?OPP 1. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?OPD 3. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ?OPD. 4. Relief. In support of his case, plaintiff has examined Hoshiar Siongh (PW-1), Gurvinder Singh ( PW-2), Rakesh Kumar ( PW-3), Sukhpal Singh ( PW-4), Raj Sukhija ( PW-5), Rana ( PW-6), Tarsem Rani ( PW-7), Sunita Rani ( PW-8), Narinder Kumar ( PW-9), Gurdev Singh (PW-10), RSA No. 1818 of 2009. 3 Pargat Singh (PW-11), Joginder Singh (PW-12), Baldev Singh (PW-13), Surinder Singh (PW-14) , Rupinder Kaur (PW-15), Satish Kumar Jain Advocate (PW-16), Kewal Krishan (PW-17), Gulshan Kumar (PW-18), VijayKumar (PW-19), Subhash Chander (PW-20), Gurtej Singh (PW-21), Surjit Singh (PW-22), Vinod Kumar Manchanda (PW-23), Amar Singh (PW-24). On the other hand, the defendant examined Amarjit Singh as DW-1 and closed the evidence after tendering certain documents. The learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence returned the finding on issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. Issue Nos.2 and 3 were also decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff and in view of the above, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 16.11.2006. Feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 16.11.2006, defendant filed appeal. The said appeal was heard and dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 3.1.2009 passed by Shri A.KSingla, Additional District Judge, Faridkot Still feeling dissatisfied with the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, the defendant/appellants have preferred the present regular second appeal. In paragraph No.4 of the grounds of appeal, the appellants have mentioned that following substantial questions of law have arisen for determination :- i. Whether the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse to the material and evidence on record ? RSA No. 1818 of 2009. 4 ii Whether injunction can be given on the basis of presumptive possession of the plaintiff as the defendant failed to prove their possession over the property in dispute or the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs to get injunction by proving his possession over the suit land ? iii Whether the Courts below were right in placing reliance upon the order which has not become final and operation of which was stayed by Hon'ble High Court ? iv. Whether the Courts below were right in granting injunction against the true owner ? v. Whether the site plan and photographs can be considered as conclusive proof of respondent's possession in the absence of demarcation report to prove construction upon particular khasra number? Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that both the Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the evidence on the file. It is a mere suit for permanent injunction and the same can be decreed only in case the plaintiff is able to prove his possession. The plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the suit property. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant have failed to prove their possession. Both the Courts below have lost sight of the fact that the defendant is in possession of the suit property. The previous suit does not affect the rights of the defendant as thereafter the possession was handed over to the defendant by Sohan Lal and Parkash Chand against whom the suit for possession was dismissed. I have carefully considered the said submission and have gone through the records. The main dispute is regarding the possession of the suit property. Both the Courts below after appreciating and re-appreciating the RSA No. 1818 of 2009. 5 evidence on the file and recorded concurrent finding that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property. That being a finding of fact cannot be interferred. Tejinder Singh filed suit for possession against Sohan Lal and Vikas Chand in respect of the suit property. The said suit was ultimately dismissed. The appeal preferred by the predecessors-in-interest of the defendant was also dismissed. There is nothing on the file that thereafter said Parkash Chand and Sohan Lal have handed over the possession to the defendant. There is nothing on the file that both the Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the oral as well as documentary evidence on the file. There is concurrent finding by both the Courts below that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. Therefore, the substantial questions framed above by the appellant stands determined against the appellant. Consequently, the appeal has no merit and the same stands dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE August 27th, 2010 sv