Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amar Nath vs Mahant Sukhdev Dass And Ors on 18 December, 2023
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162305
RSA-3789-2019 [1] 2023:PHHC:162305
113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-3789-2019
Date of decision: 18.12.2023
Amar Nath ...Appellant
Versus
Mahant Sukhdev Dass and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Rohit Sapehiya, Advocate for the appellant.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed by appellant/plaintiff against the
judgment and decree dated 23.03.2015 passed by the Court of Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Mukerian (Hoshiarpur) whereby the suit filed by the
appellant for grant of decree for declaration to the effect that appellant has
become owner in possession of the suit land with consequential relief
restraining the respondents from interfering into peaceful possession of the
appellant over the suit property, was dismissed and judgment and decree
dated 15.02.2019 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge,
Hoshiarpur whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against judgment and
decree dated 23.03.2015, has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case of appellant-plaintiff are that
appellant came into possession of the suit property vide writing/ patanama
dated 04.10.1986 whereby the entire consideration money @ Rs.10,000/- per
marla was paid to respondent No.1 Mahant Sukhdev Dass and his brother
Shiv Kumar Dass in presence of the marginal witnesses. That the appellant
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162305
RSA-3789-2019 [2] 2023:PHHC:162305
is in continuous possession of the suit property since the date of execution of
aforesaid writing whereby the proprietary rights in the suit property were
transferred in favour of the appellant by the aforesaid vendors. However,
prior to filing of the suit the respondents threatened to dispossess the
appellant and they also claimed their ownership over the suit property.
Hence the suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed.
3. The suit was contested by respondents who filed written
statement wherein it was pleaded that the appellant is neither owner nor in
possession of the suit property. Even the execution and validity of alleged
writing dated 04.10.1986 was denied. The other averments of the plaint were
also denied and it was pleaded that the suit be dismissed.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, following
issues were framed by the trial Court:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed ?OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief of permanent
injunction as prayed for?OPP
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under order 2 rule 2 CPC?
OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit land?OPD
5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?
OPD
7. Whether the site plan of the plaintiff is incorrect?OPD
8. Whether the suit of the of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder of defendant
and Mohinder Chand?OPD
9. Whether the application is without any cause of action?OPD
10.Relief.
5. In order to prove his case, appellant himself appeared in the
witness box as PW4 and also examined PW1 Himmat Singh, PW2 Amar
Singh and PW3 Manjit Singh, Draftsman and further tendered writing Ex.P1
dated 04.10.1986, site plans Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, jamabandi for the year 2005-
06 Ex.P4, khasra girdwari from 2006 to 2009 Ex.P5 and photographs Mark-
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162305
RSA-3789-2019 [3] 2023:PHHC:162305
A to C and Mark X-1 to X-3.
6. On the other hand, respondent No.1 appeared in the witness box
as DW1 and respondents also examined, DW.2 Pachanan Dass, DW3 Prem
Nath and also produced number of documents i.e. copies of plaints relating
to previous litigation, copy of legal notice, affidavit of Himmat Singh, orders
dated 22.07.2000, 23.10.2008, 18.04.2009, 20.01.2009, 18.07.2009,
14.11.2009 and 19.01.2010.
7. The learned trial Court after going through the entire evidence
decided issues No. 1 and 2 against the appellant while holding that appellant
has failed to prove his ownership and possession over the suit property and
consequently the suit was dismissed.
8. Even the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of
learned trial Court was also dismissed by the Court of Additional District
Judge, Hoshiarpur while affirming the findings recorded by the learned trial
Court. The appellate Court further observed that the suit filed by appellant in
year 2010 seeking declaration of ownership on the basis of writing dated
04.10.1986 is hopelessly time barred.
9. Being dissatisfied, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
10. I have heard the counsel for the appellant.
11. During arguments, when confronted, the counsel for the
appellant admitted that writing in question is not bearing any date. The
counsel for the appellant further conceded that appellant has failed to prove
his ownership over the suit property. However, it is contended that the
appellant is in possession of the suit property since 1986 and he being in
settled possession cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law. So
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162305
RSA-3789-2019 [4] 2023:PHHC:162305
prayer is made that the appellant be granted decree of permanent injunction
restraining the respondents from interfering into peaceful possession of the
appellant over the suit property.
12. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
appellant.
13. From the perusal of the judgments passed by the Courts below,
it is evident that the trial Court as well as first appellate Court after making
proper appreciation of the evidence, rightly held that appellant failed to
prove his ownership over the suit property. This fact was also conceded by
the counsel for appellant during the arguments.
14. During arguments, the counsel for the appellant has not
disputed the ownership of respondent No.1 and his brother Shiv Kumar Dass
with regard to suit property. Further, the trial Court observed that
appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove on record any document showing his
possession over the suit property. Even the appellate Court also reiterated
the said finding while observing that plaintiff was not shown anywhere in
revenue record Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5. During arguments, the counsel for the
appellant has failed to bring to the notice of this Court any such document
with regard to possession of the appellant over the suit property. From the
evidence discussed above, it could be easily made out that the appellant did
not approach the Court with clean hands. Further the agreement in question
was executed on 04.10.1986 whereas the suit was filed on 23.02.2010
without any explanation with regard to delay in filing of the suit. So, the first
appellate Court correctly held that the suit was hopelessly time barred.
Furthermore, it is established law that no injunction can be granted against
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162305
RSA-3789-2019 [5] 2023:PHHC:162305
true owner and in favour of the person who is in unlawful possession of the
property.
15. In light of the above, the appellant has failed to show that the
findings of the fact recorded by both the Courts below are suffering from
any illegality or perversity. Further no question of law, muchless any
substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Both the Courts
below have recorded concurrent findings of facts warranting no interference
by this Court.
16. Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby dismissed in limine,
being devoid of merits. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
18.12.2023 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162305
5 of 5
