R.S.A. No. 1001 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1001 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.2.2011 Gurnam Singh ......Appellant Versus Sukhdev Singh and others .......Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession qua the suit property. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the parties were related to each other. Plaintiff was in peaceful possession of the suit property measuring about 7 ½ marlas. The suit property had been given to the plaintiff by his father on 23.2.2007. In this regard an affidavit was executed by the father of the plaintiff. Defendants had no concern with the suit property, but were threatening to dispossess him from the same. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the plaintiff R.S.A. No. 1001 of 2011 (O&M) 2 had given up the ownership and possession of the suit property as he had received ` 50,000/- in cash qua his share in the suit property. The relationship between the parties was admitted. It was denied that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable ? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from this court ? OPD. 4. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2009, trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 1.11.2010. Hence, the present appeal by defendant No.1. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff has claimed that he was in possession of the suit land since 23.2.2007. The possession of the suit property had been handed over by the father of the plaintiff to him on 23.2.2007 and an affidavit had been executed by his father in this regard. Banta Singh, father of the plaintiff, appeared in the witness box and admitted the execution of the affidavit R.S.A. No. 1001 of 2011 (O&M) 3 dated 23.2.2007 and further stated that the possession of the suit property had been handed over to the plaintiff in terms of the said affidavit. Defendants, on the other hand, based reliance on affidavit dated 18.6.2005 Ex-D1, whereby the plaintiff had given up his right qua the suit property after receiving ` 50,000/- in cash. The said affidavit was not rightly relied upon by the Courts below as the same had not been executed in favour of the appellant. The said affidavit had rather been executed by the plaintiff in favour of his father. After the execution of Ex.D-1, the father of the plaintiff had himself handed over the possession of the house in dispute to the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and was entitled to injunction as prayed for. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 25, 2011 Anand