RSA No. 2341 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2341 of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.10.09 Mohan Singh son of Nikka Singh C/o Mohan Electric Works, Malerkotla Road, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana. ... Appellant Versus 1. Satpal Singh son of Nikka Singh, resident of XVI/425, Malerkotla Road, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana. ...Respondent 2. Rajvir Singh Kalsi alias Babla son of Mohinder Singh Kalsi, resident of Tanki No. 3, Cheema Chowk, Opposite Gold Smith, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana. ...Proforma-Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Gulzar Mohd. Advocate, for the appellant. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal, is directed, against the judgment and decree, dated 30.11.06, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khanna, vide which, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff, and, the judgement and decree dated 24.10.08, rendered by the Additional RSA No. 2341 of 2009 2 District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana, vide which, he dismissed the appeal. 2. Satpal Singh, plaintiff, purchased the land, in dispute, vide registered sale deed, bearing wasika No. 1834 dated 15.09.98. As per the revenue record, the mutation, in respect of the land, in dispute, was sanctioned, in favour of the plaintiff, vide mutation No. 38905, wherein, he was shown to be the absolute owner thereof. Though, the defendants, had no concern with the land, in dispute, yet they threatened to dispossess the plaintiff therefrom. The defendants, were many a time asked, not to interfere into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, over the land, in dispute, but to no avail. Ultimately, a suit for permanent injunction, was filed. 3. The defendants, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, they took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was pleaded that the suit was not maintainable, as the plaintiff, had not sought the relief of declaration. It was stated that the sale deed, bearing wasika No. 1834 dated 15.09.98, executed, in favour of the plaintiff, was a forged and fabricated document. It was further stated that the plaintiff, had no locus-standi, to file the suit. It was further stated that the plaintiff, did not give the correct boundaries and dimensions of the land, in dispute. It was further stated that the plaintiff, had concealed the actual position at the spot. It was further stated that the suit, was bad for mis-joinder of parties. It was further stated that the plaintiff, never purchased the property, in dispute, from RSA No. 2341 of 2009 3 the father of defendant No. 1, as also his (plantiff's) own father namely Nikka Singh. It was denied that the plaintiff was in possession of the land, in dispute. It was further stated that the plaintiff had submitted the wrong site plan, contrary to the fact, that the shop of defendant No. 1, was in existence, at the spot. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:- (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP (ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD (iii) Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts? OPD (iv) Whether there is no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD (v) Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the defendants, which was also dismissed, by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana, vide judgment and decree dated 24.10.08. 7. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by Mohan Singh, defendant/appellant. RSA No. 2341 of 2009 4 8. I have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Courts below, recorded perverse findings, on account of misreading of evidence, that the plaintiff, was in possession of the property, in dispute, and, as such, was entitled to the injunction prayed for. He further submitted that, as per the site plan P2, there was no wall, between the properties of Mohan Singh, defendant, and the plaintiff. He further submitted that the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 10. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, in my considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. It was, on the basis of sale deed P1, that the plaintiff, claimed his ownership and possession, in respect of the property, in dispute. According to the recitals, contained in the said sale deed, which was executed, in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, by his father, he was also delivered possession of the property, in dispute. The Courts below, were, thus, right in coming to the conclusion that, once the ownership and possession of the plaintiff, in respect of the property, in dispute, was proved, it was for the defendant, to establish, as to, at what point of time, he was dispossessed therefrom, and in what manner. The Courts below, were also right, in coming to the conclusion that, once a person is held to be in possession of a particular property, RSA No. 2341 of 2009 5 he is deemed to be in continuous possession thereof, until and unless, otherwise proved. The Courts below, were, thus, right in holding that, since the plaintiff, was in possession of the property, in dispute, as owner, he could not be dispossessed therefrom, except, in due course of law. The Courts below, were also right, in granting injunction, in favour of the plaintiff. 11. The concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, on the aforesaid points, being based, on the correct reading and due appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, and warrant no interference, by this Court. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below, are, thus, liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 12. No question of law, much less substantial, has arisen, in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs. 21.10.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE