RSA No. 589 of 2007 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 589 of 2007 Date of decision: November 17,2008 Smt. Pushpa Rani ..Appellant. Versus Lachhman and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Rajinder Singh Rana,Advocate for the Appellant. .. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby her suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and further restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the suit property by way of raising construction etc. has been dismissed. It is the case of the plaintiff that Smt. Kako Bai wife of late Shri Jhanku alias Chhanku was the owner in possession of the suit property. She had constructed one room and one kitchen on the suit property which is identified in old field book No.64 and which has new number 206. Kako Bai had no male issue. The house was inherited by her two daughters Devi Bai and Smt. Gobindi Bai after her death. A family settlement was arrived at between Smt. Gobindi Bai and Devi Bai and Gobindi Bai relinquished all her rights in favour of Devi Bai, the mother of the plaintiff-appellant. Devi Bai remained in exclusive possession of the disputed property during her life time and after her death in 1995, Pushpa Rani, plaintiff inherited all her rights in the disputed property and entered into its possession as a rightful owner. The plaintiff-appellant has been using the property in dispute and the defendant-respondents have no right, title or interest in the property. However, they are bent upon interfering in her possession. RSA No. 589 of 2007 2 Hence this suit. On behalf of the defendants, it was stated that Smt. Pushpa Rani is neither owner nor in possession of the disputed property. Defendant-respondent Lachhman Dass is the owner of the property and he had delivered its possession to respondent Gian Chand. The plaintiff has given a incomplete pedigree table and infact Shri Bakhsu Mal was the common ancestor of the parties. The property in dispute has devolved upon the defendant-respondents from late Shri Sobha Ram. While dismissing the suit vide judgment and decree dated 21.9.2004, the trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish that she is owner in possession of the suit property and therefore,she is not entitled to get the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff has filed an appeal which was dismissed by the District Judge, Yamuna Nagar vide impugned judgment and decree dated 20.7.2006. While dismissing the appeal, the lower Appellate Court observed as under:- “Plaintiff Pushpa Rani did not appear in the witness box to depose for her cause. Shri Sham Sunder PW3 is her attorney but he can be treated as a witness for the plaintiff but he cannot substitute for the party. Since the plaintiff has failed to appear in the witness box and depose for her cause, necessary inference deserves to be drawn against her. Shri Sham Sunder PW3 has testified that the suit property was allotted in the name of Smt. Kako Devi by the Custodian Department but no such document has been placed on record. He is a permanent resident of village Jathlana although the property in dispute is situated in the area of village Sandhala. Even, the draftsman who had prepared site plan Ex.P2 has not stepped into the witness box. Shri Hukam Chand PW2 has proved more catholic by stating that the maternal grand mother of Smt. Pushpa had transferred the suit property in her favour by way of a court RSA No. 589 of 2007 3 decree but it is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that property had devolved upon her through direct inheritance. Moreover, the witness has testified in his cross-examination that Pushpa Rani is the daughter of Smt. Kako Bai although she is her grand daughter. The appellant/plaintiff has alleged that the property in question is identified in field book No.64 which has new number 206 but no evidence has been led to prove this fact.” Still not satisfied, the plaintiff-appellant has filed the instant appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment and decrees of the courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. I find no merit in this appeal. In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff is required to lead evidence to prove possession over the suit property. However, in the present case, both the courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that plaintiff-appellant has failed to discharge the onus. The evidence brought on record on her behalf has been rebutted by the evidence led by the respondents. Whether the appellant is in possession of the suit property or not, is a question of fact which has been answered by the courts below against the appellant on appreciation of evidence on record. No infirmity or illegality has been shown by the counsel for the appellant in the findings of the courts below. Thus I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. November 17, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE