Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Ambedkar Sudhar Sabha vs Fakir Chand on 11 April, 2023
2023:PHHC:047799
RSA-692-1995 (O&M) 1
213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-692-1995 (O&M)
Reserved on : 14.03.2023
Date of decision : 11.04.2023
Ambedkar Sudhar Sabha and Ors. ....Appellants
Versus
Faquir Chand (deceased) through LR and Ors. ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Vinay Kumar Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate
for legal representative of respondent No.1.
Respondent Nos.2 to 6 proceeded
against ex parte vide order dated 20.08.2009.
ALKA SARIN, J.
The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellants
aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 08.11.1994 passed by the First
Appellate Court whereby the suit has only been partly decreed.
The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
appellants filed a civil suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction
restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering in the peaceful
possession of the plaintiff-appellants regarding building of Harijan
Dharamshala described in detail in the plaint. It was the case set up that the
property in dispute was in possession of the Sabha and it was an old Harijan
YOGESH SHARMA
2023.04.11 12:02
Dharamshala. The plaintiff-appellants had renovated the same and the site
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
judgment/order.
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:047799
adjoining the building was being used as a park by the plaintiff-appellants
for congregation and holding meetings and other functions of the Harijan
community of the village. It was further averred that the plaintiff-appellants
intended to construct a library in the premises, however, the defendant-
respondents were threatening to use the property in dispute for their private
purposes. The defendant-respondent No.1 contested the suit and denied all
allegations. He pleaded that he was the owner in possession of the property
in dispute and that earlier he had filed a suit for permanent injunction against
Ujjagar Singh and others which was decreed on 09.04.1977 and he was held
to be owner in possession of the property in dispute. Defendant-respondent
No.1 further pleaded that the Dharamshala of Harijans had been constructed
by the Welfare Department of the Punjab Government and denied that the
same had been constructed and renovated by the plaintiff-appellants. It was
further averred that the plaintiff-appellants had no right to construct the
building on the property in dispute which was owned by the Gram
Panchayat and that part of the property in dispute was owned by the Gram
Panchayat and partly by the defendant-respondent No.1. The defendant-
respondent Nos.2 to 5 also contested the suit and they also took the stand
that a portion of the property in dispute was under the Harijan Dharamshala
managed by the Gram Panchayat of Village Dhamauli. Apart from the suit
property, vacant land was in possession of defendant-respondent No.1. In
replication, pleadings in the plaint were reiterated.
On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed
by the Trial Court :
1. Whether the plaintiff Sabha is a registered under
the Registration of Societies Act ? OPP
YOGESH SHARMA
2023.04.11 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
judgment/order.
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:047799
2. Whether Bhag Singh is duly authorized to file the
suit ? OPP
3. Whether the property in dispute is in possession of
the plaintiff and is being managed by them ? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to
file the suit ? OPD
5. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed ? OPD
6. Whether the property in dispute belongs to Gram
Panchayat ? OPD
7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties ? OPD
8. Relief.
The Trial Court vide the judgment and decree dated 14.09.1992
dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the
plaintiff-appellant. The First Appellate Court modified the judgment and
decree of the Trial Court holding that the plaintiff-appellants were in control
and management of the Harijan Dharamshala and the area marked by letters
'AEFD' and restrained the defendant-respondents from interfering in the
management and control of the plaintiff-appellants on the Harijan
Dharamshala and the property on which it was situated i.e. 'AEFD' in the
plan Ex.D2 except in due course of law. The suit qua the area marked by
letters 'BCFE' in the site plan Ex.D2 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same,
the plaintiff-appellants have approached this Court by way of the present
regular second appeal.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants would contend that
the First Appellate Court ought to have decreed the suit qua the portion
YOGESH SHARMA
2023.04.11 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
judgment/order.
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:047799
'BCEF' also as the Sabha is the owner of the said property. It is urged that
the First Appellate Court erred in holding that the defendant-respondent
No.1 was owner in possession thereof.
Per contra, learned counsel for defendant-respondent No.1 has
contended that Faquir Chand (defendant-respondent No.1) had earlier filed a
suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents therein
from taking forcible possession of the property in dispute therein. In the said
suit, a compromise was arrived at between Faquir Chand (defendant-
respondent No.1) and the predecessor-in-interest of some of the present
plaintiff-appellants. As per the compromise, the predecessor-in-interest of
some of the present plaintiff-appellants were restrained from taking
possession of the site 'BCFE' as depicted in the site plan Ex.D2 and the
judgment and decree dated 07.02.1975 (Ex.D1) accompanied by site plan
(Ex.D2) was res judicata between the parties.
Heard.
In the present case the First Appellate Court, relying on the
judgment and decree (Ex.D1) and site plan (Ex.D2), has held that Faquir
Chand - defendant-respondent No.1 - was owner in possession of the
property shown as 'BCFE' in the site plan Ex.D2 and accordingly modified
the findings on issue Nos.3 and 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-
appellants has not been able to show any evidence barring the fact that when
the property was given to the Harijans by the Gram Panchayat, Faquir Chand
(defendant-respondent No.1) was one of the signatory. There is no material
forthcoming in the form of credible evidence to show that the plaintiff-
appellants had control over the property marked by letters 'BCFE' in the site
plan Ex.D2. In the absence of the same, I do not find any illegality and
YOGESH SHARMA
2023.04.11 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
judgment/order.
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:047799
infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. No
question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the
present case for determination by this Court. The present regular second
appeal, which is wholly devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
Dismissed.
( ALKA SARIN )
11.04.2023 JUDGE
Yogesh Sharma
NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
YOGESH SHARMA
2023.04.11 12:02
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
judgment/order.
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
