IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2310 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 24 th May, 2011 Ramesh Kumar ….Appellant Versus Mehnga Ram ….Respondent CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL PRESENT : Mr. M. S. Bedi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Bakshi, Advocate for the appellant. * * * * * L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No.6385-C of 2011: Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal: Plaintiff-Ramesh Kumar who was successful in the trial court but has been non-suited by the lower appellate court, has come up by way of instant second appeal. Plaintiff-appellant filed suit against defendant-respondent Mehnga Ram alleging that plaintiff purchased the suit plot from Sudesh Rani vide sale deed dated 09.09.2002 and is owner in RSA No.2310 of 2011(O&M) possession thereof. The defendant threatened to interfere in ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit plot. Accordingly, plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from doing so. The defendant pleaded that he is owner as well as in possession of the suit plot since the time of partition of country when he constructed his house. The defendant in the alternative also pleaded that he has also become its owner by adverse possession. Plaint averments were broadly controverted. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.2010 decreed the plaintiff’s suit. However, first appeal preferred by defendant has been allowed by learned District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 22.04.2011. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Plaintiff except appearing himself as witness and producing sale deed and other documents has not led any other evidence. The plaintiff has miserably failed to depict that plaintiff’s vendor Sudesh Rani was either owner or in possession of the suit plot. Since ownership or possession of the plaintiff’s vendor over the -2- RSA No.2310 of 2011(O&M) suit land is not established, plaintiff also cannot be said to be owner or in possession of the suit plot. Self-serving oral statement of the plaintiff is not sufficient to prove his ownership or possession over the suit plot. The plaintiff has not even examined his vendor Sudesh Rani as witness and, therefore, adverse inference arises against the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also not examined any other person from the village in support of his version. In addition to the aforesaid, the plaintiff admitted that defendant is in possession of the suit land. Thus entire claim of the plaintiff is negatived by his own testimony. It is thus manifest that plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the suit plot. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the defendant by setting up the plea of adverse possession has admitted ownership of the plaintiff over the suit plot. The contention, apparently attractive, is fallacious and devoid of substance. The defendant specifically pleaded that he is owner as well as in possession of the suit plot since the partition of the country when he constructed his house there. In addition to the said plea, defendant further pleaded that he has also become owner of the suit plot by adverse possession. This alternative plea does not in any manner depict that the defendant admitted ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property. -3- RSA No.2310 of 2011(O&M) It may also be added that plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction only. However, plaintiff is admittedly not in possession of the suit plot. Consequently, suit for injunction is not even maintainable. The trial court committed grave error in decreeing the plaintiff’s suit for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in plaintiff’s possession over the suit property, although the plaintiff himself admitted that he is not in possession of the suit property and that defendant is in possession thereof. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Lower appellate court has rightly non-suited the plaintiff. Finding recorded by the lower appellate court is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. So, the said finding does not warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 24th May, 2011 ‘raj’ -4-