RSA No. 2119 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 2119 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.5.2011. Hari Ram and others .......Appellants Vs. Chet Ram and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for the appellants. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that the plaintiff and proforma defendants were owners in possession of the plot forming part of Ahata No. 8 Ghar No. 15 situated in residential area of village Khairani. Plaintiff and proforma defendants had constructed their houses and were residing therein. The contesting defendant had no concern with the property belonging to the plaintiff but was threatening to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Hence, suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant No.1, in his written statement, averred that plaintiff was neither owner nor in possession of the suit property. The plot in dispute did not form part of Ahata No. 8 Ghar No. 15. RSA No. 2119 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Defendant was owner of the constructed portion of the property in dispute. Defendants No. 2 to 4 were proceeded exparte. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the disputed property is a part of Ahata No. 8, Ghar No. 15? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff and proforma-defendants are owner in possession of the disputed property as alleged? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether present suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 6. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? OPD 7. Whether plaintiff has estopped by his own and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 8. Whether the defendant has become owner of disputed property by way of adverse possession? OPD 9. Whether defendant is entitled to special costs? OPD 10. Relief.” Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgment and decree RSA No. 2119 of 2010 (O&M) -3- dated 4.2.2008 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and restrained defendant No.1 from interfering in the ownership and possession qua the house of the plaintiff as well as adjoining vacant land marked by letters A1, B1, C1, D1 shown in the site plan Ex. D-2. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, legal representatives of contesting defendant preferred an appeal and the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 2 and 3 preferred cross objections. The Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the legal representatives of the contesting defendant and allowed the cross objections filed by the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 2 and 3. Hence, the present appeal by the legal representatives of defendant No.1. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction that the contesting defendant No.1 be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession. In order to prove his case, plaintiff proved on record Khasra Paimaish and mutations. As per the said documents, plaintiff had inherited the suit property. The local commissioner gave a report that the suit property forms part of Ahata No. 8 and Ghar No. 15. Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the property in dispute forms part and parcel of Ahata No. 8 and Ghar No. 15. On the basis of the documentary evidence on record both the courts below have given a finding of fact that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit property and had inherited the same from Gidhu along with RSA No. 2119 of 2010 (O&M) -4- proforma defendants. However, it also transpired on record that the contesting defendant had made certain construction over the property in dispute about 20-25 years ago. In these circumstances, the learned first appellate court rightly held that the plaintiff and proforma defendants were exclusive owners in possession of the property in dispute excluding the constructed portion of the house of the defendant. The defendant could not claim to be in possession of the vacant property. Merely because the defendant might have been tethering his cattle in the said property, did not lead to the inference that he had become owner or could be described to be in possession of the said vacant land which was owned by the plaintiff. Thus, the courts below have rightly restrained the appellants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and proforma defendants qua their house and the vacant land but no injunction has been granted qua the constructed portion of the house in possession of the defendant. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 26, 2011 Gurpreet