Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devi Ram vs Ravi Shankar And Others on 9 May, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064643
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
102
RSA-100-1994 (O&M)
Date of decision: 09.05.2024
DEVI RAM ..Appellant
Versus
RAVI SHANKAR AND OTHERS ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Varun Parkash, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondents.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. This regular second appeal has been filed by defendant No.1
against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below while
decreeing plaintiff's suit for the grant of decree of permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession with respect to a
house. While filing the suit, the plaintiff claims that he along with defendant
No.7 is residing in the house continuously. Previously, their parents were
living in the house for the last 35 years. They have also got a site plan
sanctioned from the Municipal Committee in the year 1978. Defendant No.1
to 3 while contesting the suit claims that they are owner in possession from
the time of their ancestors. The plaintiff examined as many as five witnesses
including municipal official who produced and proved site plan Ex.PW4/1.
2. On the other hand, defendants examined four witnesses and
produced site plan Ex.DW1/1.
3. Upon appreciation of evidence, both the Courts below have
found that the evidence led by the plaintiff is more reliable particularly when
defendant
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064643
RSA-100-1994 (O&M) -2-
No.1 appeared in evidence as DW-4 and admitted that the plaintiff and
before him, his predecessors were residing in the area. He also admits that
the plaintiff applied for sanction of the site plan in the year 1978, which was
sanctioned.
4. The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that the
site plan is not a building plan and PW-2 has admitted the possession of
defendants.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondents
while reading the statement of DW-4 Sh. Devi Ram has submitted that the
possession of the plaintiff is admitted.
6. In this case, no documentary evidence has been led by the
appellant to prove his title or entitlement to the property. Basically, apart
from the site plan approved by the Municipal Committee, there is no
document produced by the parties from any authentic source. The decision
of the case depends upon oral evidence. An isolated sentence in the
statement of PW-2 cannot be read in a manner that is divorced from the
substantive statement. Moreover, the admission of defendant No.1 that the
plaintiff is in possession is considered sufficient to uphold the judgments.
7. Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.
8. Dismissed accordingly.
9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
May 09th, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
