RSA No.1962 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1962 of 2008 Date of Decision: 09.07.2009 Nagar Council Longowal ...Appellant VERSUS Satish Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. G. S. Sandhawalia, Advocate for the appellant. *** AJAY TEWARI J. This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction restraining the appellant-Municipal Committee to dispossess him from the property in dispute illegally and forcibly. Both the Courts below had granted the decree in favour of the plaintiff-respondent on the ground that firstly his possession over the disputed property was admitted and secondly the appellant was not claiming the ownership of the property in dispute. In my opinion, no fault can be found either of these findings. Learned counsel for the appellant has proposed the following substantial questions of law:- “a) Whether the principles of resjudicata would be applicable in view of the fact that the brother of the RSA No.1962 of 2008 -2- plaintiff/respondent had already set up a lease deed of the same date qua the same property? b) Whether the second suit filed by the brother was an apparent fraud and whether the registered Lease Deed (Ex. P8) was duly proved in the absence of the vendor? c) Once it had been held that the property was public property, whether the courts below could hold to the contrary? d) Whether in view of Section 172-A of the Punjab Municipal Act, the civil court could go into the said dispute?” The first question of law is decided against the appellant. It would be seen that the title claimed/parties in both the suits was different. The second question is a pure question of fact and learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded therein are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of the evidence so as to render the same perverse. Question no.'c' does not arise since the property cannot be held to be public property. In fact in the previous litigation this Court had specifically held in a suit for declaration-that Municipal Committee was held as owner without any pleadings or issue, only for the purpose of defending the suit and not as a declaration of ownership of the Municipal Committee. With regard to question no.'d', suffice it to say that any exclusionary clause has to be strictly construed. In any case, a civil suit to RSA No.1962 of 2008 -3- protect possession against illegal and forcible eviction cannot be held to be barred by Section 172-A of the Punjab Municipal Act. It must be noticed that the present suit is not for declaration of ownership right but merely to protect the admitted possession of the respondent. In view of the above, all the questions proposed are decided against the appellant and consequently appeal is dismissed. No costs. As the main case has been disposed of therefore all the pending civil miscellaneous applications in the case also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 09, 2009 JUDGE ashish