RSA No. 3847 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 3847 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.03.2011. Harbans Kaur .......Appellant Vs. Dharam Pal & others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. A.P.Kaushal, Advocate for Mr. B.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the respondents. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in her peaceful possession. It was averred in the plaint that plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land for the last more than 20 years and was storing manure and cow dung cakes in the suit property. Defendants on the other hand, in their written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the defendants were in possession of the suit property on the basis of donation by Sher Singh @ Muni Singh to the grandfather of defendants No. 1 and 2. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues RSA No. 3847 of 2009 (O&M) -2- were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property? OPP 3. Whether the defendants are owners in possession of the suit property being donated by Sher Singh @ Muni Singh vide writing dated 19.1.1954? OPD 4. Whether the site plan produced by the plaintiff is incorrect? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD 7. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 5.5.2009, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree were upheld, in an appeal filed by the plaintiff, by Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 10.9.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiff was that she was in possession of the suit property as owner for the last more than 20 years and she was storing manure and cow dung cakes in the suit property. However, in order to establish her ownership, plaintiff failed to produce any document on record. The plaintiff RSA No. 3847 of 2009 (O&M) -3- placed reliance on her statement and of PW-2 Bisakha Singh, in support of her case. The plaintiff has not even proved on record the site plan. Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the plaintiff had failed to establish her possession over the suit property. Mere user of the suit property, for storing manure and cow dung cakes, cannot establish the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 09, 2011 Gurpreet