Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karnail Singh vs Swaran Singh Boparai on 4 July, 2022
102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1880 of 2019 (O&M)
Reserved on : 01.06.2022
DATE OF DECISION : 04.07.2022
Karnail Singh .....Appellant
versus
Swaran Singh Boparai .....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Harkaran Singh, Advocate for the appellant
..
ALKA SARIN, J.
The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the
plaintiff-appellant against the judgments and decrees passed by both the
Courts below dismissing his suit for permanent injunction.
The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
appellant instituted a suit for permanent injunction praying therein for
restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering in his possession of
the suit property on the ground that the suit property was allotted to him by
1 of 5
the Tehsildar Sales, Ropar vide order dated 06.10.1980 and since then he is
owner in possession of the said plot. The plaintiff-appellant averred in the
plaint that he is tethering his cattle, storing cow dung cakes and storing his
agricultural instruments on the suit property. It was further averred that the
defendant-respondent had purchased land in village Khadhri and was
alleging that he had purchased a plot, adjoining to the suit property, from
one Nirmal Singh and under the garb of this document the defendant-
respondent was threatening to encroach upon the suit property.
On notice, the defendant-respondent appeared and filed his
written statement. It was denied for want of knowledge that any plot was
allotted by the Tehsildar Sales, Ropar to the plaintiff-appellant. It was
further averred that the plaintiff-appellant had exchanged the plot (suit
property) with one Nirmal Singh vide Exchange Deed dated 28.09.2004
and in lieu thereof the plaintiff-appellant took another plot from Nirmal
Singh also took possession of the exchanged plot. Since the date of the
exchange i.e. 28.09.2004 Nirmal Singh was owner in possession on the
basis of the Exchange Deed of the plot (suit property). Thereafter, vide
agreement to sell dated 12.08.2009 Nirmal Singh further sold the suit
property to the defendant-respondent and since then he is in possession
thereof. Nirmal Singh even sold 1/3 share out of the land touching on the
west of this plot to the defendant-respondent for Rs.60,000/-. The
registered sale deed dated 03.03.2011 was witnessed by none other than the
plaintiff-appellant himself. As such, it was averred that the plaintiff-
appellant was neither owner nor in possession of the suit property.
2 of 5
Vide judgement and decree dated 30.10.2018 the Trial Court,
on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on the record,
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant on the ground that there was no
evidence on the record to prove the possession of the plaintiff-appellant
and further that since there had been material concealment of facts from the
Court, hence he was not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, an appeal
was preferred by the plaintiff-appellant which was also dismissed vide
judgment and decree dated 12.03.2019. Hence, the present regular second
appeal.
The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has vehemently
contended that the plaintiff-appellant is owner in possession of the suit
property on the basis of the order dated 06.10.1980 passed by the Tehsildar
Sales, Ropar and that the suit property was never exchanged by him with
Nirmal Singh. It was argued that both the Courts below had erred in non-
suiting the plaintiff-appellant on illegal and erroneous grounds.
Heard.
In the present case the plaintiff-appellant while approaching
the Court had concealed material facts in as much as the Exchange Deed,
which was subsequently admitted by him in cross-examination, was not
mentioned in the plaint as also the fact that the agreement to sell dated
12.08.2009 (Ex.D2) and copy of the sale deed dated 03.03.2011 (Ex.D1)
were also concealed and did not find a mention in the plaint though the
plaintiff-appellant is himself a witness to the sale deed dated 03.03.2011
(Ex.D1). A perusal of the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts
3 of 5
below reveals that both the Courts below have concurrently held that the
plaintiff-appellant was guilty of suppression of material facts disentitling
him from the equitable relief of injunction. Further, the Courts below have
held that there is not an iota of evidence on the record to show that the
plaintiff-appellant was in possession of the suit property. Though an
argument was raised before both the Courts below as well as before this
Court that the Exchange Deed was never acted upon, however, there is no
evidence on the record to prove this contention. Rather, the plaintiff-
appellant withheld material facts while approaching the Court in as much
as neither was the Exchange Deed mentioned nor the fact that the adjoining
property had been purchased by the defendant-respondent from Nirmal
Singh and the plaintiff-appellant himself was a marginal witness to the sale
deed.
In the matter of A. Shanmugam vs. Ariya Kshatriya
Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam
[(2012) 6 SCC 430] the Supreme Court inter-alia held that :
"It is the bounden duty of the court to uphold the truth
and do justice. Every litigant is expected to state truth
before the law court whether it is pleadings, affidavits
or evidence. Dishonest and unscrupulous litigants have
no place in law courts. The ultimate object of the
judicial proceedings is to discern the truth and do
justice. It is imperative that pleadings and all other
presentations before the court should be truthful. Once
the court discovers falsehood, concealment, distortion,
4 of 5
obstruction or confusion in pleadings and documents,
the court should in addition to full restitution impose
appropriate costs. The court must ensure that there is
no incentive for wrongdoer in the temple of justice.
Truth is the foundation of justice and it has to be the
common endeavour of all to uphold the truth and no
one should be permitted to pollute the stream of
justice."
In view of the above and the concurrent findings of fact
returned by both the Courts below, I do not find any merit in the present
appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law,
arises in the present case. The regular second appeal is accordingly
dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.
(ALKA SARIN)
JUDGE
04.07.2022
parkash
NOTE:
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : YES/NO
5 of 5
