RSA No. 3498 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3498 of 2010. Date of decision 27.08.2010. Sukhjinder Kaur ...... Appellant. versus Sarwan Singh ...... Respondent. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. Present : Mr. Parveen K.Kataria, Advocate for the appellant. K.C.PURI, J. This is an appeal directed by-plaintiff-appellant against judgment dated 9.6.2010 passed by Mrs. Sunita Kumari Sharma, Additional District Judge, Kapurthala and judgment dated 13.2.2009 passed by Miss. Kamal Virinder, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phagwara vide which the suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed. Sukhjinder Kaur has filed suit for permanent injunction with the allegations that plaintiff is in possession of two rooms one drawing room, lobby, kitchen, store, verandaha and the shops as detailed in the head note of the plaint. It is pleaded that it is a matrimonial house where she is residing. The suit property is the ownership of Swaran Singh defendant but RSA No. 3498 of 2010 2 the construction of the house and shops were raised by her husband by spending Rs.10,00,000/-. The plaintiff is living along with her two sons Rajwinder Singh and Gurdeep Singh in the suit house and the defendant is residing in the ancestral house separately. Husband of the plaintiff and son of defendant died on 5.8.2006. Previously, he was residing in Greece. The meter connection in question is in the name of Kuljit Singh husband of the plaintiff. The defendant is threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit house and the shops. Hence the suit. Defendant appeared and filed written statement and taken up the preliminary objection that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit. Plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from the Court ; the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and as such, she is not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction as prayed for. Defendant has also pleaded that plaintiff is widow of Kuljit Singh son of the defendant. She is residing in a portion of the house. Shops were constructed by the defendant have come under his control. It is denied that Rs.10,00,000/- were spent for construction by Kuljit Singh. Plaintiff filed replication denying the contents of written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the plaint. Following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for ?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands ?OPD. RSA No. 3498 of 2010 3 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his own act and conduct ?OPD. 5. Relief. In support of her case, plaintiff Sukhwinder Kaur appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and also examined PW-2 Surinder Singh. On the other hand, the defendant Sarwan Singh himself appeared as DW-1 and also examined DW-2 Paramjit Singh and Ravinder Singh DW-3 and closed the evidence. The learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiff regarding the house in question but no relief regarding shop was granted. Feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment, plaintiff filed appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by Mrs. Sunita Kumari Sharma, Additional District Judge, Kapurthala. Still feeling dissatisfied with the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, the plaintiff/appellant has preferred the present regular second appeal. The appellant has mentioned in paragraph No.4 of the grounds of appeal that following substantial questions of law have arisen for determination :- a) Whether the courts below can on the basis of same evidence can decline the relief of injunction qua part of same property ? b) Whether wife of deceased husband has right to seek injunction of the whole of property including shops ? c) Whether the judgments of the courts below are vitiated to the extent of shops as though the issue regarding injunction has been decided in favour of appellant/plaintiff but the relief RSA No. 3498 of 2010 4 regarding shops has been wrongly declined ? d) Whether the judgments and decrees under appeal are not sustainable to the extent of declining the relief regarding shops, which is integral part of the property in dispute ? Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that suit of the plaintiff regarding house has been rightly decreed by the trial Court. Both the Courts below have ignored the evidence on the file. The shops were constructed by the funds arranged by Kuljit Singh. The shops are the integral part of the property in dispute. The injunction should have been granted regarding the shops also. I have carefully considered the said submissions and have gone through the records of the case. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that defendant is the owner of the house and shops in question. That being a finding of fact cannot be interferred. The suit of the plaintiff qua the house has been decreed keeping in view that it is a matrimonial house where the plaintiff/appellant used to reside along with her children. There is no legal right of plaintiff/appellant in respect of shops in dispute. So far as the shops are concerned, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the same have been constructed out of the funds provided by Kuljit Singh husband of the plaintiff. There is nothing on the file that judgment of the trial Court is the result of misreading and misinterpreting the evidence on the file. So, in view of the above discussion no substantial question of law has arisen in this case for determination. RSA No. 3498 of 2010 5 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