Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pakhar Singh vs Nek Singh & Ors on 2 February, 2023
RSA 788 of 1991 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA 788 of 1991 (O&M)
Date of decision : 2.2.2023
...
Pakhar Singh
................Appellant
vs.
Nek Singh and another
.................Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan
Present: None.
...
H. S. Madaan, J.
1. In nutshell, facts of the case are that plaintiff - Pakhar
Singh had brought a suit against defendant - Nek Singh, seeking a
decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from
interfering in his possession over the plot fully detailed in headnote
of the plaint, situated in the area of Klal Majra, and further
restraining the defendant from raising construction thereon.
2. As per version of the plaintiff, Mst. Bhano cousin sister
of the plaintiff was owner of the plot in question, measuring about
1 Biswa. Mst. Bhano had sold that plot to the plaintiff on 2.7.1986
for a sum of Rs.6,000/- executing a receipt in that respect. The
plaintiff has been in possession of the plot in question ever since
1 of 5
RSA 788 of 1991 -2-
2.7.1986. There was a Kikar tree and hand pump in the plot and
plaintiff has been using the plot for tethering his cattle. The
defendant has no concern with the plot, but even then he
threatened to interfere in possession of the plaintiff, over the same,
giving rise to a cause of action to the plaintiff to bring the suit.
3. On getting notice, the defendant appeared and filed a
written statement contesting the suit. Inter alia in the written
statement, defendant contended that the plot in suit was owned by
his father Sh. Ishar Singh, which had fallen to his share in partition
that had taken place about 25/30 years prior to filing of the suit, as
such Sh. Ishar Singh remained in possession of the plot in suit and
after his death, the defendant alongwith his brother came in
possession. He has placed cotton sticks and about 2000 bricks in
the plot in dispute and he has been tethering his cattle there. Mst.
Bhano had no concern with the plot and she has no right to sell the
same to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had neither any concern with the
plot nor any locus standi to bring the suit. Such defendant prayed
for dismissal of the suit.
4. The plaintiff filed replication controverting the
allegations in the written statement and reiterating the averments
made in the plaint. From the pleadings of the parties, following
issues were framed :-
1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the property
in suit? OPP
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction
prayed for ? OPP
2 of 5
RSA 788 of 1991 -3-
3) Whether the plaintiff has got a locus standi to file the
present suit? OPD
4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present
form as alleged? OPD
5) Relief.
5. Parties were afforded adequate opportunities to lead
evidence in support of their respective claims.
6. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court of Sub Judge
Ist Class, Barnala, decided issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff,
holding that he is in possession of the plot in suit. Issue No.2 was
decided in favour of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff is
entitled to injunction prayed for. Issue No.3 was decided against
defendant and in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff
plaintiff has locus standi to file the suit. Whereas issue No.4 was
decided holding that the suit was maintainable. Vide judgment,
dated 3.11.1988, the trial Court decreed the suit for grant of
permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from interfering
in the possession of the plaintiff over the plot in dispute, except in
due course of law.
7. The defendant preferred an appeal against the judgment
and decree passed by the trial Court before District Judge, Sangrur,
which was assigned to Additional District Judge, Sangrur, who
accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, vide
judgment dated 25.9.1990.
8. Thus feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff - Pakhar Singh has
knocked at the door of which Court, by way of filing the present
3 of 5
RSA 788 of 1991 -4-
appeal, notice of which was given to the respondent - defendant,
who had put in appearance. However, there has not been any
representation on behalf of the appellant or respondent. Since the
case is quite old i.e. of the year 1991, I do not find it proper and
appropriate to adjourn it any further and rather proceed to decide it
after going through the record.
9. The Ist Appellate Court of learned Additional District
Judge, Sagrur, has observed in para No. 7 of the judgment that so
far as claim of ownership of the plot in dispute by the plaintiff is
concerned, it was conceded by his counsel appearing in the appeal
that there was no sale deed executed by Mst. Bhano in favour of
the plaintiff and only a receipt had been issued by Mst. Bhano on
2.7.1986 in that regard, but that receipt itself does not confer any
title of ownership upon the plaintiff and with regard to the question
as to which of the parties is in possession of the plot in dispute, it
was observed that admittedly plaintiff claimed delivery of the
possession of the plot to him by Mst. Bhano and prior to receipt
dated 2.7.1986 Exhibit P-1, he was not in possession of the plot. It
was not established on record that Mst. Bhano had any title of the
plot in suit and when she got her statement recorded as PW-3 she
admitted in her cross examination that he had never remained in
possession of the plot in dispute and she had not delivered
possession of that plot to the plaintiff.
10. Learned Additional District Judge has observed that
though defendant could not produce any evidence that plot in
dispute fell to the share of his father in any partition, but it was for
4 of 5
RSA 788 of 1991 -5-
the plaintiff to prove his case that he has been in possession of
the plot in question, in the manner as pleaded by him in his
pleadings, which he could not do. Therefore, the plaintiff was not
found entitled to injunction prayed for. With plaintiff having failed
to prove his ownership or possession qua the plot in dispute, the
suit was dismissed by the Ist Appellate Court of Additional District
Judge, Barnala. The judgment passed by the Ist Appellate Court is
quite detailed, well reasoned, based upon proper appraisal and
appreciation of evidence and correct interpretation of law. There is
no illegality or infirmity therein.
11. On the other hand, the trial Court, while decreeing the
suit filed by the plaintiff, seems to have come to a wrong
conclusion that plaintiff was in possession of the plot in dispute
and in that way granting relief of permanent injunction to him
against the defendant.
12. I do not see any reason to disturb the legal and valid
judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Barnala.
13 As a matter of fact, no substantial question of law arises
in the present appeal.
14. The appeal is found to be without any merit and the same
stands dismissed accordingly.
( H.S. Madaan )
2.2.2023 Judge
chugh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether reportable Yes / No
5 of 5
