R.S.A.No.95 of 1988 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No.95 of 1988 Date of decision: 23.2.2011 Ram Piari and others ......Appellants Versus Municipality, Bhiwani .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Ms.Alka Sarin, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Y.P.Singh, Advocate for respondent **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging therein that they were owners in possession of the suit land and hence, the defendant had no right to take forcible possession of the suit property. Amar Chand had purchased the suit property from Ram Kumar Singh and Parmal Singh vide sale deed dated 8.9.1967. Amar Chand further sold the plot to Thaggu Ram, father of plaintiffs No.1 to 5 and husband of plaintiff No.6 vide sale deed dated 15.9.1969. After the death of Thaggu Ram, plaintiffs had inherited the suit property and were in possession of the same. Ram Piari had purchased her plot vide sale deed dated 9.11.1972 from Bhomal and R.S.A.No.95 of 1988 2 Ramji Lal purchased his plot vide sale deed executed in his favour by Ram Kishan. Defendant-Municipality, in its written statement, averred that the plaintiffs had unauthorisedly constructed a boundary wall on the plot in dispute. The same was liable to be demolished. The other contentions in the plaint were denied. It was further averred that the suit property vested in the Municipality. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the property in dispute? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit ? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 4.Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the case? OPD 5. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for non service of notice under Section 52 of the Municipal Act ? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for want of necessary parties? OPD 7.Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 21.5.1987 only to the effect that the defendant will not interfere into the possession of the plaintiffs over the plot in dispute and demolish the construction raised therein R.S.A.No.95 of 1988 3 except in due course of law. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.10.1987 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhiwani. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in a suit for permanent injunction, the finding recorded by the trial Court qua ownership of the suit land was un-warranted and the same may adversely affect the appellants in later litigation, if any. The said apprehension of the learned counsel for the appellants is misplaced as it is a settled proposition of law that in a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiffs were only required to establish their possession over the suit property. Any finding given by the Civil Court qua ownership does not operate as resjudicata in later litigation, if any. The finding of the Courts below on issue No.1, whereby the plaintiffs were not held to be owner of the suit land, cannot, thus, adversely affect the rights of the plaintiffs in subsequent litigation, if any. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 23, 2011 anita