R.S.A. No.4314 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.4314 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on :19.4.2010 Devi Sahai .... Appellant VERSUS Union of India & another .... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER. Present:- Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant. MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M. No.13081-C of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. R.S.A. No.4314 of 2009 (O&M) This is plaintiff's Regular Second Appeal against the judgments and decrees dated 16.10.2006 and 24.8.2009 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Narnaul (for short `the first appellate Court'), whereby the suit and appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant have been dismissed. The plaintiff/appellant had filed a suit against the respondents for permanent injunction seeking to restrain them from interfering in his possession over the suit property. He also prayed for the damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. He pleaded that the disputed area, which was a residential house, depicted with letters R.S.A. No.4314 of 2009 (O&M) -2- “ABCD”. The defendants/respondents contested the suit and denied the allegations against them. They pleaded that the land belongs to the Railway Department, which has been shown by points G H K & I and this fact was admitted in the previous correspondence between the appellant and the respondents. They further pleaded that the appellant had encroached upon the area to the extent of 75.06 square yards and as such, he is under an obligation to vacate the same. It was also pleaded that the appellant had merely purchased 300 square yards. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession in respect of the suit property as detailed and described in the head note of the plaint? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent and mandatory injunctions as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff has encroached upon the railway land to the extent of 75.06 square yards and the defendants are entitled to the relief of possession in respect of the same? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD. R.S.A. No.4314 of 2009 (O&M) -3- 6. Whether the defendants are entitled to special cost under Section 35-A of CPC? OPD. 7. Relief. Both the Courts on the basis of the evidence which is in the nature of sale deed in favour of the appellant concluded that he had merely purchased 300 square yards and he was in possession of excess area of 75.06 square yards, which belongs to the respondents. These findings have been questioned by the appellant to say that these are perverse and contrary to the material on record. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the considered opinion that both the Courts had taken into account the sale deed, which was a valid document, to establish the territory and the extent of the area of the appellant, which is 300 square yards. The possession of more area without any authority, of the land, which belongs to the respondents, was obviously unauthorized. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any injunction, more so when the land belongs to a public authority. These questions of fact, which have been determined by the Courts below, cannot be interfered with in a regular Second Appeal, when no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed. The application for stay is also dismissed in view of above. 19th April, 2010 (MAHESH GROVER) Monika JUDGE