Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jeet Singh Through Gpa vs Tarsem Singh And Others on 23 January, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
RSA No.2144 of 2023 -1- 2024:PHHC:008311
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
125 RSA No.2144 of 2023 (O&M)
Reserved on : 16.01.2024
Date of Decision : 23.01.2024
Jeet Singh ... Appellant
Versus
Tarsem @ Billu and Others ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Daljit Singh Virk, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J.
CM-7308-2023
1. For the reasons stated therein, the application for condonation
of delay in refiling the appeal is allowed. Delay of 60 days in refiling the
appeal is condoned.
RSA-2144-2023
2. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the
plaintiff-appellant against concurrent findings of both the Courts below
whereby his suit has been dismissed.
3. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
appellant filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction averring
therein that the vacant plot of land, as fully detailed in the head note of the
plaint and shown in red colour and marked as ABEFGIJP in the site plan, is
situated in village Kalru, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi and it forms part of plot
No.67 (area 10560 sq. feet) which was purchased by the father of the
RSA No.2144 of 2023 -2- 2024:PHHC:008311
plaintiff-appellant, Puran Singh, in an open auction vide Sale Certificate
dated 01.08.1970. After the death of Puran Singh, the plaintiff-appellant and
his brother Malkit Singh became co-sharers in the plot in dispute being the
sons of Puran Singh. It was alleged that despite an interim order passed in
favour of the plaintiff-appellant the defendant-respondents had forcibly and
illegally interfered in the possession of the plaintiff-appellant and had made
a "Chann" of dry sticks and placed fodder cutting machine and fastened their
cattle over the suit property just to show their possession. A Report was
lodged with the Police in this regard by the plaintiff-appellant and the
defendant-respondents were requested to admit his claim over the suit
property, but to no effect. Hence, the present suit. The defendant-respondent
No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte while the defendant-respondent Nos.2
and 3 filed their written statement raising preliminary objections of
maintainability, locus-standi, cause of action, estoppel and suppression of
true and material facts from the Court. It was averred that a false story has
been cooked up and written by the plaintiff-appellant and it was denied that
they have forcibly and illegally made a "Chann" of dry sticks and placed a
fodder cutting machine and fastened their cattle in the suit property. It was
also denied that any order had been disobeyed by them. It was further
averred that the defendant-respondent Nos.2 and 3 were using the suit
property as haveli and had also grown vegetables in some vacant portion of
suit property. The stand taken was that the plaintiff-appellant had filed the
present suit on the basis of an alleged sale deed and alleged Sale Certificate
only to grab the suit property by mentioning wrong boundaries and wrong
area whereas the plaintiff-appellant was never in possession of the suit
RSA No.2144 of 2023 -3- 2024:PHHC:008311
property. The alleged sale deed and the alleged Sale Certificate have nothing
to do with the suit property and the boundaries in the present suit do not
match with the boundaries mentioned in the said alleged sale deed and the
alleged Sale Certificate. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues
were framed :
1) Whether plaintiff is in settled possession of suit
property ? OPP
2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of perpetual
injunction as claimed for ? OPP
3) Whether suit filed by plaintiff is maintainable ?
OPP
4) Whether plaintiff has got locus-standi and cause of
action to file the present suit ? OPP
5) Relief.
4. The parties led their evidence and on the basis of the pleadings
and evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant
holding that the area of the site plans Ex.P3 and Ex.P1 did not match and as
such the case of the plaintiff-appellant with regard to the suit property is not
sustainable. The Trial Court also found that without identifying the total area
and without specification of boundaries of the suit property, no legitimate
inference can be drawn that the defendant-respondents had encroached upon
the suit property during the pendency of the suit. As per the Trial Court the
plaintiff-appellant had failed to prove the identity of suit property as well as
the total area of the suit property. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree
dated 25.09.2018, an appeal was preferred which also met with the same fate
vide judgement and decree dated 03.01.2023. Hence, the present regular
second appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has contended
RSA No.2144 of 2023 -4- 2024:PHHC:008311
that the impugned judgements and decrees are illegal and against the
evidence available on the record. It is argued that the ownership and
possession of the plaintiff-appellant over the suit property was established
and the suit ought to have been decreed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and perused
the paperbook.
7. In the present case the plaintiff-appellant has failed to establish
his ownership or possession over the suit property. In the absence of his
ownership and possession, the Courts below were justified in declining the
relief of injunction to the plaintiff-appellant. Even before this Court the
learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has been unable to point out to any
evidence on the record to corroborate the averments made in the plaint or
establish his ownership and possession over the suit property. That being so
and in the absence of any evidence, the present appeal must necessarily fail.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in
the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts. No question of law,
much less any substantial question of law, arises for determination in the
present case. The present regular second appeal, which is wholly devoid of
any merit, is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed off.
Whether reportable: YES/NO
