Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sheo Ram & Ors vs Hissam Raj & Ors on 29 April, 2024
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
RSA No.2398 of 1993 (O&M) ::1:: 2024:PHHC:063606 137 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2398 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.04.2024 SheoRam&ors, ee Appellants versus Hissam Raj & ors, ee Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN KK Present :- Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondents. ae 3 2 PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
1 Defendants are in second appeal. Parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the appellants as the defendants and the respondents as the plaintiffs.
2 Plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction claiming that they are owner in possession of a Baithak and cattle house (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). They further claimed that they feel threatened of dispossession at the hands of the defendants. The suit was resisted by defendants No.2, 3 & 6 by filing joint written statement claiming that the suit property was owned by one Ballu son of Kirpa. Smt. Indro Devo D/o Balla rernained in possession of the same along with Sheo Ram S/o Indro Devi. Ballu Ram had no male issue and lost his senses in the old age. The plaintiffs being not in possession of the property and Indro Devi and her son Sheo Ram being in possession of the same the plaintiffs have no concern with the property. The trial POOJA SHARMA * * 2024.05.10 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA No.2398 of 1993 (O&M) ::2:: 2024:PHHC:063606 Court framed following issues :~ i. Whether the plaintiffS are owners in possession of the disputed properties? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action?OPD.
3. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder and mis-joinder of parties? OPD,
4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file this suit? OPD.
5. whether the suit is not maintainable in the present fram ? OPD.
é. Relief.
3 Trial Court dismissed the suit deciding issue No.1 against the plaintiffs holding that no documentary evidence has been proved by the plaintiffs to show their ownership and possession. The oral evidence alone cannot suffice to prove the possession.
4 In appeal the judgment passed by the trial Court has been reversed holding that the testimony of PW1 Hissam Raj and PW2 Puran find support from the evidence of the defendants particularly Mehar Singh DW3 and Sheo Ram PW5. It was held that it stands established that Balti Ram the admitted owner of the property was residing with Hissam Raj-the plaintiff No.land not with Indro Devi or Sheo Ram as alleged by the defendants. Appellate Court further held that from the evidence it has been proved that the relations between Balla Ram and Indro Devi were not good and Ballu willed away all his property in favour of plaintiff No.1-Hissam Raj. Reversing the findings on issue No.1 appellate Court held that as a natural corollary thereof findings recorded by the trial Court on issue No.2, 4 & 5 are also reversed and answered in favour of the plaintiffs. Resultantly, the suit was decreed.
POOJA SHARMA 2024.05.10 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.RSA No.2398 of 1993 (O&M) ::3:: 2024:PHHC:063606 5 Counsel for the appellants-defendants has not been able to point out any perversity in the judgment. Pure finding of fact has been recorded. Thus there is no need for this Court to interfere in the second appeal preferred by the defendants.
6 Appeal stands dismissed.
(PANKAJ JAIN ) JUDGE 29.04.2024 Pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable : No POOJA SHARMA 2024.05.10 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.