Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surja vs Ram Piari And Ors on 25 January, 2023
RSA-264-2003(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-264-2003(O&M)
Date of decision:-25.1.2023
Surja
...Appellant
Versus
Smt.Ram Piari and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
Present: Mr.Roopak Bansal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.S.R. Hooda, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
1. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Surja had
brought a suit against Smt.Ram Piari and Gram Panchayat of village
Machhrola, Tehsil & District Sonepat seeking a decree for permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful
possession over the plot/house in question and dispossessing him
therefrom illegally and forcibly.
2. As per the version of the plaintiff, the State Government had
gifted the plot in dispute to the plaintiff under the 20 Point Programme
executing a registered gift deed in his favour on 3.3.1994; the plaintiff had
enclosed that plot with a boundary wall after doing the earth work and had
1 of 6
RSA-264-2003(O&M) -2-
constructed a room for residential purpose there placing khuntas, cheff
cutter, fuel woods and cow dung cakes there and he has been using the
plot in dispute for tethering cattle as well as for his residential purpose;
although the defendants have no right or concern with this property but
even then defendant No.1 at the instance of defendant No.2 threatened to
dispossess the plaintiff therefrom illegally and forcibly, as such the
plaintiff brought the suit in question.
3. On getting notice, the defendants appeared and filed separate
written statements contesting the suit. In the written statement filed by
defendant No.1, she had raised various legal objections contending that
plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit; the suit is not maintainable; no
cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file the suit; the suit was not
properly valued for the purpose of Court fee etc. On merits, the answering
defendant denied that the plaintiff is owner or in possession of the plot in
dispute, rather claimed that such defendant is the owner and in actual
physical possession of the plot in dispute for more than 12 years with
which the plaintiff has no concern. The defendant claimed that he had
constructed the boundary wall and filled up the earth in the plot in dispute
by spending Rs.3,000/- and has planted trees therein, in that way, she is
using the suit property for all practical purposes; this plot was wrongly
allotted to the plaintiff vide gift deed dated 5780 dated 3.3.1994 because
he was not eligible for the same; the answering defendant had filed a
complaint in that regard to Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, who held an
inquiry and found the plaintiff ineligible for allotment of the plot,
therefore the gift deed was cancelled vide order dated 13.6.1994; along
2 of 6
RSA-264-2003(O&M) -3-
with the plaintiff several other persons like Norang and Ram Diya were
also found ineligible for the allotment and their allotment was cancelled;
vide letter No.3029 dated 26.4.1994, the gift deed bearing No.2866 dated
27.6.1994 was executed in favour of the answering defendant and
mutation No.495 has also been sanctioned in her favour; the plaintiff has
no right or concern with the property in question and he has filed a wrong
suit in that regard, which calls for dismissal.
A separate written statement was filed on behalf of defendant
No.2 Gram Panchayat which is almost on the similar lines as that of
defendant No.1. It also prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. The plaintiff had filed replication controverting the
allegations in the written statements whereas reiterating the averments in
the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property?
OPP.
2. Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred u/s 13 of
PVCL Act? OPD.
3. Whether the suit is barred by principle of res-judicata? OPD.
4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit?
OPD.
5. Relief.
5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.
6. During the course of his evidence, the plaintiff examined
Sardar Singh as PW1 and got his own statement recorded as PW2.
On the other hand, defendant No.1 got her own statement
3 of 6
RSA-264-2003(O&M) -4-
recorded as DW1 and the defendants had further examined Dalip as DW2.
It may be mentioned here that defendant No.2 had been
proceeded against ex-parte during the proceedings of the case.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court
decided issue No.1 against the plaintiff, issues No.2 and 3 were decided
against the defendants, issue No.4 was decided in favour of the
defendants. Resultantly, suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs.
This was so done vide judgment and decree dated 12.4.2002.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the
plaintiff had filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Sonepat, which
was assigned to Additional District Judge, Sonepat, who vide judgment
and decree dated 24.12.2002 dismissed the same.
9. Still feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff has knocked at the door
of this Court by way of filing a regular second appeal praying that the
same be accepted, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the
Courts below be set aside and his suit be decreed.
10. Notice of the appeal was issued to the
respondents/defendants. However, respondent No.2 put in appearance
through counsel.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going
through the record and I find that the appeal is absolutely without merit.
12. Permanent injunction dealt with by Section 38 of the Specific
Relief Act,1963 is a discretionary equitable relief, which is to be granted
by the Court keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case
including the conduct of the parties and no person can claim this relief as
4 of 6
RSA-264-2003(O&M) -5-
a matter of right. For laying basis for grant of permanent injunction, a
person approaching the Court must do so with clean hands disclosing all
the material facts and if he or she tries to conceal any material fact from
the Court, then such relief is not to be granted. Clause (i) of Section 41 of
the Specific Relief Act provides that an injunction cannot be granted when
the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to disentitle him
to the assistance of the Court.
13. Here in the present case, although the plaintiff claims that the
gift deed in his favour had been executed but he is silent with regard to the
same having been cancelled on a complaint submitted by defendant No.1
against him that he was not eligible for allotment of the plot and then the
plot had been allotted to defendant No.1. All these facts are quite material
but the plaintiff opted to keep studied silence in that regard and on that
score alone the suit deserved dismissal.
The plaintiff has filed a suit for grant of permanent injunction
simpliciter without seeking a declaration that the cancellation of the gift
deed in his favour and thereafter the execution of gift deed in favour of
defendant No.1 are wrong. The plaintiff has straight away filed a suit for
permanent injunction claiming that he is in possession of the property in
dispute when as a matter of fact he has failed to prove it by producing
cogent and convincing evidence. Rather it comes out that the stand taken
by the defendants is correct and defendant No.1 is in possession of the
plot in question at the spot on strength of the gift deed pleaded by her in
the written statement. Therefore the suit of the plaintiff was rightly
dismissed by the trial Court vide the impugned judgment and decree dated
5 of 6
RSA-264-2003(O&M) -6-
12.4.2002, which were affirmed by the First Appellate Court vide the
impugned judgment and decree dated 24.12.2002.
14. Although learned counsel for the appellant has contended that
Deputy Commissioner was not authorized to cancel the gift deed in favour
of the plaintiff but the fact remains that the plaintiff has not challenged
any such action by the Deputy Commissioner seeking a declaration in that
regard and straightway filed the suit for grant of permanent injunction. As
per the settled law, he cannot seek a declaration in garb of injunction.
Therefore, this plea of the counsel for the appellant cannot be considered.
15. I conclude that the findings given by the Courts below are
based upon proper appreciation and correct interpretation of law. Both the
Courts had rejected the claim of the plaintiffs. I do not see any reason to
disagree with the Courts below and take a different view and further to
interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees. Those judgments and
decrees are upheld.
16. No substantial question of law or fact arises in this appeal.
17. The appeal stands dismissed with costs accordingly.
Since the main appeal stands dismissed, the miscellaneous
application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
25.1.2023 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
