Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sheo Ram & Ors vs Hissam Raj & Ors on 29 April, 2024
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
RSA No.2398 of 1993 (O&M) ::1:: 2024:PHHC:063606
137 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2398 of 1993 (O&M)
Date of decision : 29.04.2024
SheoRam&ors, ee Appellants
versus
Hissam Raj & ors, ee Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
KK
Present :- Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate
for the appellants.
None for the respondents.
ae 3 2
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
1 Defendants are in second appeal. Parties hereinafter are
referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the appellants as the
defendants and the respondents as the plaintiffs.
2 Plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction claiming that
they are owner in possession of a Baithak and cattle house (hereinafter
referred to as the suit property). They further claimed that they feel
threatened of dispossession at the hands of the defendants. The suit was
resisted by defendants No.2, 3 & 6 by filing joint written statement
claiming that the suit property was owned by one Ballu son of Kirpa.
Smt. Indro Devo D/o Balla rernained in possession of the same along
with Sheo Ram S/o Indro Devi. Ballu Ram had no male issue and lost
his senses in the old age. The plaintiffs being not in possession of the
property and Indro Devi and her son Sheo Ram being in possession of
the same the plaintiffs have no concern with the property. The trial
RSA No.2398 of 1993 (O&M) ::2:: 2024:PHHC:063606
Court framed following issues :~
i. Whether the plaintiffS are owners in possession of the
disputed properties? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action?OPD.
3. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder and mis-joinder
of parties? OPD,
4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file this
suit? OPD.
5. whether the suit is not maintainable in the present fram ?
OPD.
é. Relief.
3 Trial Court dismissed the suit deciding issue No.1 against
the plaintiffs holding that no documentary evidence has been proved by
the plaintiffs to show their ownership and possession. The oral evidence
alone cannot suffice to prove the possession.
4 In appeal the judgment passed by the trial Court has been
reversed holding that the testimony of PW1 Hissam Raj and PW2 Puran
find support from the evidence of the defendants particularly Mehar
Singh DW3 and Sheo Ram PW5. It was held that it stands established
that Balti Ram the admitted owner of the property was residing with
Hissam Raj-the plaintiff No.land not with Indro Devi or Sheo Ram as
alleged by the defendants. Appellate Court further held that from the
evidence it has been proved that the relations between Balla Ram and
Indro Devi were not good and Ballu willed away all his property in
favour of plaintiff No.1-Hissam Raj. Reversing the findings on issue
No.1 appellate Court held that as a natural corollary thereof findings
recorded by the trial Court on issue No.2, 4 & 5 are also reversed and
answered in favour of the plaintiffs. Resultantly, the suit was decreed.
RSA No.2398 of 1993 (O&M) ::3:: 2024:PHHC:063606
5 Counsel for the appellants-defendants has not been able to
point out any perversity in the judgment. Pure finding of fact has been
recorded. Thus there is no need for this Court to interfere in the second
appeal preferred by the defendants.
6 Appeal stands dismissed.
(PANKAJ JAIN )
JUDGE
29.04.2024
Pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable : No
