Jarnail Singh And Another vs Dalip Singh And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3522 P&H

                     108-1                                                    2023:PHHC:048657

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                                                       CHANDIGARH



                                                                RSA No.1113 of 2022 (O&M)
                                                                RESERVED ON : 29.03.2023
                                                                DATE OF DECISION : 11.04.2023




                     Jarnail Singh and Another                                         .....Appellants


                                                            versus


                     Dalip Singh and Others                                          .....Respondents



                     CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN



                     Present :         Mr. Amit Kashyap, Advocate for
                                       Dr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the appellants
                                                   ..


                     ALKA SARIN, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant Nos.1

and 2 against the judgment and decree dated 06.05.2022 passed by the First

Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2019

passed by the Trial Court whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1

had been dismissed.

Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-

respondent No.1 filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the

PARKASH CHAND 2023.04.11 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

2023:PHHC:048657

defendant-appellants and others from forcibly and illegally dispossessing

the plaintiff-respondent No.1 from the suit land measuring 59 kanals - 13

marlas situated in the area of Village Laluwala, Tehsil Zira as fully

described in the plaint. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 claimed to have

become owner in possession of the suit land on the basis of a Will dated

30.11.2015 executed by Gurbax Singh. Based on the Will, a mutation was

also entered. It was further the case of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 that he

was in peaceful cultivating possession of the suit land and that the

defendant-appellants and others had tried to forcibly dispossess him and

harvest the wheat crop. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellants.

Defendant-appellant No.1 Jarnail Singh claimed himself to being the

adopted son of deceased Gurbax Singh and stated that the Will set up by

the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was forged and fabricated. On the basis of the

pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent

injunction as prayed form (sic) ? OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous,

vexatious as prayed for? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court

with clean hands? OPD

4. Relief.

The Trial Court, holding the Will not to be a valid Will, held

that even if the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was in possession, yet relief of

permanent injunction could not be granted. The suit was accordingly

dismissed. The First Appellate Court upheld the validity of the Will and

PARKASH CHAND 2023.04.11 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

2023:PHHC:048657

further on the basis of the jamabandi 2011-2012 (Ex.P1) held that Gurbax

Singh was shown as the previous owner in possession of the suit land and

there was an entry of Mutation No.1259 in favour of the plaintiff-

respondent No.1 on 23.05.2016 and that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had

also mortgaged 33 kanals - 10 marlas of land in favour of State Bank of

Patiala, Makhu vide Rapat No.42 of 23.09.2016 (Ex.P20). Hence, holding

the plaintiff-respondent No.1 to being in possession, the First Appellate

Court allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and

reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by

the said judgment and decree dated 06.05.2022 passed by the First

Appellate Court, the present regular second appeal has been preferred by

the defendant-appellants.

Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants would contend

that in view of the fact that the Will itself was not proved on the record, the

First Appellate Court erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent

No.1. The learned counsel further contended that the Will itself was

shrouded by suspicious circumstances and further that the plaintiff-

respondent No.1 was not in possession of the suit land.

Heard.

In the present case the suit was for simpliciter injunction. The

Trial Court was only to see whether the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had

proved his possession over the suit land. However, the Trial Court totally

misdirected itself by going into the issue of the validity of the Will. Infact,

there is no discussion regarding the possession of the plaintiff-respondent

PARKASH CHAND 2023.04.11 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

2023:PHHC:048657

No.1 based on the evidence on the record. The First Appellate Court on the

basis of the jamabandi for 2011-2012 (Ex.P1), which showed Gurbax

Singh as owner in possession of the suit land and thereafter Mutation

No.1259 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 on 23.05.2016 as also

on the basis that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had mortgaged 33 kanals 10

marlas of land in favour of State Bank of Patiala (Ex.P20), held that the

possession of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was proved. There is no

evidence on the record to the contrary to show that the defendant-

appellants are in possession of the suit land.

In view of the findings of fact returned by the First Appellate

Court, 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 which

requires determination by this Court. The present appeal, which is wholly

devoid of any merit, accordingly stands dismissed. Pending applications, if

any, also stand disposed off.

(ALKA SARIN) JUDGE 11.04.2023 parkash

NOTE:

Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

PARKASH CHAND 2023.04.11 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.