R.S.A. No. 573 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 573 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.2.2011 Mansha Singh ......Appellant Versus Mangal Singh and another .......Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. R.N. Moudgil, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the property marked as 'ABCD' in the site plan bounded as under :- North : Property of plaintiff 24'-7” South: Street 21'-7” East : House of defendants and Rama 55' West: Street 55'. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit property as it was his ancestral property. Defendants had no concern with the suit property but were threatening to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the plaintiff R.S.A. No. 573 of 2011 (O&M) 2 was not in possession of the suit property. In fact, the suit property was bounded as under :- “North: House of Narain Singh, father of plaintiff. East: House of Bakhtawar Singh and others West: Street” Gian Kaur had sold the suit property to Dial Singh and Jiwa Ram vide sale deed dated 23.4.1957 along with other landed property. Jiwa Ram had three sons, namely, Bachna Ram, Anant Ram and Sant Ram, who had inherited his property after his death. Bachna Ram and Nant Ram were in possession of their share on the northern side adjoining the house of the plaintiff. The share of Sant Ram had been purchased by father of the defendants vide sale deed dated 19.3.1985. The side adjoining the abadi came to the share of the defendants. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction on the ground as prayed for ? OPP. 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable ? OPD. 3. Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 2.2.2010. Aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by Additional District Judge, Mohali vide judgment and decree dated 3.1.2011. Consequently, suit filed by the R.S.A. No. 573 of 2011 (O&M) 3 plaintiff was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. It is a settled proposition of law that plaintiff has to plead and prove his case and has to stand on his own legs and cannot draw any benefit from the weakness in evidence led by the defendants. In order to succeed, plaintiff was required to establish that he was in possession of the property in question. Plaintiff had failed to prove on record any document in this regard. Mere user of the suit property would not establish the possession of the plaintiff over the property in dispute. In these circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge rightly discarded the report of the Local Commissioner, according to which sand, bricks etc. belonging to the plaintiff were lying in the suit property. The suit property is a vacant plot and merely because the plaintiff might have been using the same would not lead to the inference that the suit property was in possession of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 3, 2011 Anand