R.S.A. No. 4101 of 2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4101 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 22,2011 Dayanand.............................................. Appellant versus Smt. Mano Devi and others ................. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri Present: Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate for the appellant. ... RITU BAHRI, J. This is a Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.3.2011 passed by the District Judge, Rohtak, whereby the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Rohtak, has been dismissed. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction that the defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land detailed in para 1 of the plaint. The plaintiff was the absolute owner of the land and is in lawful possession of the same. The defendants were threatening to dispossess the plaintiff by interfering in their lawful possession. Hence, the present suit was filed. On notice, the defendants filed their written R.S.A. No. 4101 of 2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] statement. They took the preliminary objection that the suit was not maintainable. The plaintiff had no locus-standi to file the present suit. The present suit land had been partitioned between the plaintiff and defendants and they were owners in possession of their specific killa number. Killa No.548/2 is not in possession of plaintiff and the plaintiff has no concern with Killa No. 548. The A.C. II Grade partitioned the Khewat and Sanad Taksim was prepared acording to Naksha Khe. The matter was decided upto the Hon'ble High Court, the plaintiff did not file any appeal against the order of A.C.II Grade, so the partition became final. The plaintiff is owner in possession as per Sanad Taksim “Instrument of partition”, that this court has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit. On merits, the defendants submitted that the plaintiff is now owner in possession of the land detailed in para No.1 of the plaint. In fact, the said land has been partitioned and the plaintiff is owner in possession as per Sanad Taksim. The plaintiff has no concern with Killa No. 548. On 23.5.2002 the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1.Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land, as alleged in the plaint? OPP 2.If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as R.S.A. No. 4101 of 2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] prayed for? OPP 3.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPD 4.Whether, the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit. 5.Whether suit property has already been partitioned, as alleged? OPD 6.Whether the Civil Courts at Rohtak have no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit, as alleged? OPD 7.Relief. After going through the entire evidence on the file the trial Court returned the findings on issues No. 1 and 2 partly in favour of the plaintiff and issue No.5 was decided in favour of the defendants. The suit land had been partitioned by the competent authority as per Ex.P4 Sanad Taksim. The whole controversy revolved around Killa No.548. The plaintiff admitted that defendant is in possession of the land except Killa No. 548. The partition proceedings have attained finality upto the High Court. The defendants had filed their objections against the partition proceedings which were rejected by the A.C.Ist Grade vide order dated 5.1.1995. The appeal filed by the defendants was rejected by the Collector R.S.A. No. 4101 of 2011 (O&M) [ 4 ] on 10.5.1995. Thereafter, the defendants had filed a revision (Ex.D2) before the Commissioner which was accepted and the impugned order was set aside to the extent that Killa No.548 was to be given to Ram Singh, defendant No.1. This order was challenged by the plaintiff by filing Civil Writ Petition No.8070 of 1998 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 24.10.2000 (Ex.D1). The partition proceedings become final. The Commissioner had accepted the revision, a fresh Naksha Keh (Ex.D3) was prepared and possession of the land was delivered. Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 (Ex.D5) shows that the plaintiff is not the owner in possession of Killa No.548. The suit of the plaintiff has been decreed partly and it has been held that he has no concern with Killa No. 548 as per Sanad Taksim and in lieu of this land Killa No.546 was to be given towards south. The trial Court has partly allowed the suit of the petitioner by restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land except Killa No. 548. On appeal, the Appellate Court has affirmed the findings given by the trial Court and held that possession of khasra No. 548 (2) has been delivered to the defendants and the proceedings have attained finality uptil High Court. The suit for injunction without disclosing all the facts was not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed. R.S.A. No. 4101 of 2011 (O&M) [ 5 ] No question of law much less than the substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Dismissed. ( RITU BAHRI ) 22.11.2011 JUDGE rupi