Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jai Bhagwan And Anr vs Rishi Dev And Anr on 8 January, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:000725
RSA-3976-2023 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
118
RSA-3976-2023 (O&M)
Reserved on : 05.01.2024
Pronounced on : 08.01.2024
JAI BHAGWAN AND ANOTHER ....Appellants
VERSUS
RISHI DEV AND ANOTHER ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the appellants.
ALKA SARIN, J.
CM-14193-C-2023
This is an application for condonation of delay of 24 days in
refiling the appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 24 days in
refiling the appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed off.
RSA-3976-2023
1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the
defendant-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2023
passed by the learned First Appellate Court.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
respondents filed a suit for a decree of permanent injunction on the ground
that they were owners in possession of the house shown by letters ABCD in
the site plan (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). It was further
averred that the said house was purchased by one Umed Singh and Chandan
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:000725
Singh (the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondents) vide sale
deed dated 08.07.1968. It was further averred that since the suit property was
in a dilapidated condition the plaintiff-respondents intended to reconstruct
the same, however, the defendant-appellants were interfering in their
possession and were not permitting them to raise the construction. Hence,
the suit.
3. The defendant-appellants filed a written statement raising
preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action and non-joinder
of necessary parties. On merits it was contended that the suit property was
an open plot and there was no house in existence. It was further averred that
the said plot was being used by all the co-sharers. It was further the stand
taken that the property was initially owned by one Smt. Jeo daughter of
Naryan Singh, who owned the same to the extent of half share, and the
remaining half share was owned by Shri Chand son of Har Lal and Badlu
son of Netram in equal shares. Netram had one son namely Badlu and one
daughter namely Jiwani. Badlu died issueless and his property was inherited
by his sister, namely, Jiwani. On the death of Jiwani her legal heirs inherited
her property. It is further the stand taken in the written statement that the
share of Badlu was purchased by Umed Singh and Chandan Singh and the
share of agricultural land and plots of Abadi Deh were purchased by the
ancestors of the defendant-appellants through registered sale deed. It was
further averred that the plaintiff-respondents had no right, title or interest in
the suit property.
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:000725
The Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree
dated 23.11.2022. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the
Trial Court an appeal was preferred which was allowed by the First
Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 14.07.2023. Hence, the
present Regular Second Appeal by the defendant-appellants.
4. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants would contend
that the plaintiff-respondents had not approached the Court with clean hands
inasmuch as it had been pleaded that the suit property was a house, however,
it is a vacant plot. It is further the contention that the defendant-appellants
are co-sharers in the suit property and hence they cannot be injuncted from
using the suit property.
5. Heard.
6. In the present case though it has been mentioned that there was
a dilapidated house, however, the First Appellate Court found that the old
construction had been dismantled with the passage of time and that this was
apparent from the site plan (Exhibit P-1) that the plaintiff-respondents had
attached with the plaint. That being so, the argument of the learned counsel
for the defendant-appellants cannot be accepted as the site plan which is
appended with the plaint clearly depicts the suit property of being a vacant
piece of land. The second argument of the learned counsel for the defendant-
appellants that the plaintiff-respondents are co-sharers in the suit property
also cannot be accepted in view of the fact that there is not even an iota of
evidence led by the defendant-appellants to show their ownership qua the
suit property. It is trite that ownership of a vacant piece of land goes by the
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:000725
title. In the present case though it has been averred in the written statement,
and which has also been argued by the learned counsel for the defendant-
appellants, that they are co-sharers in the suit property, however, on a
pointed query as to the nature of the evidence led by the defendant-
appellants to show their ownership qua the suit property, learned counsel for
the defendant-appellants has candidly admitted that not a single document
was produced in evidence to show their ownership.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present
appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises
for determination in the present case. The present Regular Second Appeal is
accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
08.01.2024 ( ALKA SARIN )
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
integrity of this judgment/order.
