RSA No.1398 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1398 of 2010 Date of decision: 19.5.2010 Sheesh Pal and others .....Appellants. vs. Mohar Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, SeniorAdvocate, with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the appellants. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court whereby the appellants have been restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-respondent over the suit property, in any manner, whatsoever, holding that the second property in dispute belongs to Baba Hirdey Ram Tapo Bhumi Sankat Mochan Jan Kalyan Trust (hereinafter referred to as the “Trust” and the present decree shall not be effective against the aforesaid Trust being not a party to the suit. As per the averments plaintiff-respondent filed a suit seeking declaration that he was owner in possession of two suit properties as detailed in para 1 of the plaint. It was pleaded that area of first property was 62 square yards and of second property 129 square yards. He was in continuous and hostile possession of property No.1 since 1982 and second property measuring 129 square yards was purchased vide sale deed dated 24.4.1989 Plaintiff-respondent also sought a decree for permanent RSA No.1398 of 2010 2 injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into his possession from the suit property claiming himself to be the owner and in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the aforesaid property since 1982, and further claiming that the property No.2 belongs to the aforesaid Trust and appellants have no right, title or interest in the same. Upon notice, the defendant-appellants controverted the averments made in the suit by the plaintiff-respondent. On merits, it was submitted that the property No.1 belongs to the Trust, which had become owner of the aforesaid property on the basis of a civil court decree dated 6.3.1999, which was duly registered with the Sub Registrar, Ballabgarh. It was further claimed by the appellants that the area of the second suit property held by the plaintiff-respondent was 109 square yards only instead of 129 square yards. It was further submitted by them that they have nothing to do with this property i.e.second property. The averments with regard to the existence of any street between the two properties maintained by the MCF was denied. In these circumstances, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. The plaintiff-respondent filed replication controverting the pleas taken in the written statement and reiterating those taken in the plaint. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions. After examining the evidence adduced by the parties, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.2007 holding that the suit property No.1 was owned and RSA No.1398 of 2010 3 possessed by the Trust as per the judgment and decree dated 6.3.1999 and as per the admission made by the appellants. No findings were recorded on issue No.1, as plaintiff had given up the plea of adverse possession. Under issue No.2 the trial Court held that the property in dispute was a public property and, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to the decree of injunction as prayed for. Issue No.3 was not pressed. Under Issue No.4 it was held that the suit property was owned by the Trust. Keeping in view these findings, the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed. Not satisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Court which was partly allowed. Vide impugned judgment and decree dated 20.11.2009. the findings of the trial Court on issue No.4 were upheld. However, while deciding issue No.2 the lower Appellate court held that since the plaintiff- respondent was proved to be owner in possession with regard to property measuring 109 square yards and since the defendants have got no right, title or interest whatsoever nor they have claimed any right to property No.2, the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to injunction qua this property. With regard to the first property i.e. property measuring 62 square yards belonging to the Trust, it was held that since the defendants were strangers to the suit property and the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property was proved on the basis of the admission on the part of the appellants, the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to protect his possession against the defendants. Not satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, the appellant-defendants are before this Court in this appeal. RSA No.1398 of 2010 4 Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the plaintiff- respondent could not have been granted injunction in view of the findings of the lower Appellate Court that the suit property property measuring 62 square yards belongs to the Trust, and the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court is liable to be set aside on this score. On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal:- “Whether an injunction can be granted in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in view of the findings that the property in dispute belongs to the Trust ?” I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, and perused the impugned judgment and decree. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the defendant-appellants have no right, title or interest in the suit property. Learned counsel for the appellants was also unable to point out any material irregularity in the findings of the lower Appellate Court regarding the possession of the plaintiff-respondent in the suit property. It is well settled that a person in possession is entitled to protect the same against the whole world except against the true owner. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law and the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court, I find no merit in this appeal filed on behalf of the defendant-appellants who have no right or title in the property in dispute. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge May 19, 2010 rk RSA No.1398 of 2010 5