Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charno Devi Through Special Attorney ... vs Jeet Ram And Others on 30 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:058581
RSA-24-2019 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
106 RSA-24-2019 (O&M)
Reserved on : 29.04.2024
Date of Decision : 30.04.2024
Charno Devi ....Appellant
VERSUS
Jeet Ram & Ors. ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J.
CM-78-C-2019
For the reasons stated therein, the delay of 6 days in refiling the
present regular second appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed off.
RSA-24-2019
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant
challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court vide
judgment and decree dated 28.03.2018 and the First Appellate Court vide
judgment and decree dated 06.07.2018 dismissing her suit for permanent
injunction.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that she is exclusive
owner in possession of the suit land forming part of Khasra No.223 (0-4)
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:058581
Gair Mumkin abadi. It was averred that the plaintiff-appellant had raised a
tin shed, bathroom, pegs and khurli in the suit land about 20 years back and
that the defendant-respondents were strangers to the suit land having no
right, title or concern with the same. It was further averred that the
defendant-respondents wanted to raise construction or structure on the suit
land and change its nature forcibly and illegally. Hence, the suit. On notice
the defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed joint written statement taking
preliminary objections of maintainability and concealment of facts. On
merits it was denied that the plaintiff-appellant was the exclusive owner in
possession of the suit land. It was pleaded that the plaintiff-appellant was the
owner, co-sharer of Khasra No.224 which was adjoining to the khasra
number in dispute and that she had no concern with any part of the property
of Khasra No.223 which was in exclusive possession of the defendant-
respondent No.1 and that the plaintiff-appellant had her property towards the
southern side comprised in Khasra No.224. It was submitted that previously
the defendant-respondent No.3 was in exclusive possession of Khasra
No.223 being proprietor of the village and he had got constructed a small
temple of Balmiki Ji over some part of this khasra number and later on he
had transferred the property in favour of the defendant-respondent No.1 and
put the defendant-respondent No.1 in possession and since then the
defendant-respondent No.1 was in exclusive possession of Khasra No.223
without any objection from any quarter and that the plaintiff-appellant had
herself admitted the possession of the defendant-respondent No.1 over
Khasra No.223 in proceedings under Section 107/151 CrPC. The defendant-
respondent No.3 filed separate written statement. Replication was filed
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:058581
controverting the averments made in the written statement and reiterating
those made in the plaint.
3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues
were framed by the Trial Court :
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent
injunction as prayed for in the plaint ? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not
maintainable? OPD
3. Relief, if any.
4. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.03.2018
dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the
plaintiff-appellant which appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate
Court vide judgment and decree dated 06.07.2018. Hence, the present
regular second appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that
the plaintiff-appellant was the owner in possession of the suit land and that
both the Courts erred in dismissing her suit. It is further the contention that
the defendant-respondents have no concern with the suit land and as such the
suit should have been decreed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel.
7. Both the Courts have found that there was no evidence on
record to show that the suit land was owned by the plaintiff-appellant or that
she was in exclusive possession thereof. The plaintiff-appellant has woefully
failed to show her exclusive possession over the suit land. Both the Courts
have concurrently found as a matter of fact that the plaintiff-appellant had
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:058581
failed to prove her possession over the suit land. It is trite that in a suit for
injunction it is incumbent on the plaintiff to prove his possession over the
suit property. Though the plaintiff-appellant examined PW-2 to depose that
the plaintiff-appellant had purchased the suit land from one Parkash but no
sale deed was produced on the record. The plaintiff-appellant did not step
into the witness box herself. Even before this Court the learned counsel for
the plaintiff-appellant has not been able to point out anything on the record
to establish the exclusive possession of the plaintiff-appellant over the suit
land. Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has been unable to dislodge the
findings of fact recorded by both the Courts. No other point was argued.
8. In view of the above, no question of law, much less any
substantial question of law, arises in the present case. The present appeal is
devoid of any merit and is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
30.04.2024 JUDGE
Yogesh Sharma
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment.
