Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Parshad (Deceased) Through His Lrs vs Sahab Ram And Others on 19 November, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150275
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-1750-2019 (O&M)
Reserved on : 14.11.2024
Pronounced on : 19.11.2024
Ram Parshad (deceased) through his LRs & Ors. ....Appellants
VERSUS
Sahab Ram & Ors. ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Rahul Vohra, Advocate and
Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate for the appellants.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the
defendant-appellants (defendant Nos.2 to 5) challenging the judgments and
decrees dated 04.01.2016 and 09.10.2018 passed by the Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court, respectively whereby the suit for permanent
injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 stands partly decreed.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
respondent No.1 filed the present suit for permanent injunction averring that
he alongwith the performa defendant is in actual physical cultivating
possession of the suit land being a gair marusi tenant. As per the plaintiff-
respondent No.1 he and the performa defendant are recorded as gair marusi
tenants in the revenue record since 1954 and have been cultivating the suit
land since the time of their forefathers and the defendant-appellants have got
no right, title or interest in the same. The predecessor-in-interest of the
defendant-appellants had given the banjar suit land to the predecessor-in-
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150275
RSA-1750-2019 (O&M) [2]
interest of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and the performa defendant with a
promise not to evict them. The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-
respondent No.1 had made the suit land fit for cultivation by their hard
labour and spending huge amount of money. The plaintiff-respondent No.1,
performa defendant and their predecessor-in-interest were never ejected
from the suit land by the defendant-appellants. However, the name of
defendant No.1 was wrongly reflected in the column of ownership and the
name of defendant Nos.2 to 6 was wrongly recorded in the column of
cultivation of the suit land though the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and the
performa defendant were in exclusive and in actual physical cultivating
possession of the entire suit land. It was averred that the defendant-
appellants by taking undue advantage of the wrong revenue entries were
bent upon to interfere in the peaceful and the lawful possession of the
plaintiff-respondent No.1 on the suit land and also bent upon to dispossess
the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and further alienate the suit land. Hence, the
suit. The defendant-appellants filed their separate written statement stating
that the suit was barred by Section 11 CPC in view judgment and decree
dated 11.10.2012 in the suit titled 'Ram Parsad and others Vs. Moti and
others' in which the defendant-appellants had been declared as owners in
possession of the suit land by virtue of Section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy
Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 and hence the relationship
of landlord and tenant had come to an end. It was the stand taken that the
plaintiff-respondent No.1 had no concern with the suit land as he was neither
the owner nor in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff-respondent No.1
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150275
RSA-1750-2019 (O&M) [3]
had filed the present suit in collusion with defendant No.1 who had
purchased the suit land during the pendency of the previous suit.
3. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were
framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff not maintainable ?
OPD
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under
Section 11 of CPC ? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file
the present suit ? OPD
5. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is collusive
with defendant no.1 ? OPD
6. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is against a
dead person i.e. defendant no.3, suit is nullity ? OPD
7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be
rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Order 2
Rule 2 CPC ? OPD
8. Relief.
4. Vide judgement and decree dated 04.01.2016 the Trial Court
partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 to the extent that the
defendant-appellants were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff-
respondent No.1 from the suit land except in due course of law. However,
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150275
RSA-1750-2019 (O&M) [4]
decree to restrain the defendant-appellants from alienating the suit land to
any other person was declined. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was
preferred by the defendant-appellants which appeal was dismissed by the
First Appellate Court vide judgement and decree dated 09.10.2018. Hence,
the present regular second appeal by the defendant-appellants.
5. The learned counsel for the defendant-appellants would contend
that both the Courts have erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-
respondent No.1. It is urged that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was not in
possession of the suit land and had no right, title or interest therein and
therefore the suit deserved to be dismissed.
6. Heard counsel for the defendant-appellants.
7. In the present case both the Courts have found that the plaintiff-
respondent No.1 was in possession of the suit land as a sub-tenant. The
revenue record also showed his status as sub-tenant and in possession. The
evidence led by the defendant-appellants to prove to the contrary is only oral
evidence. The Courts found that the evidence on the record proved that the
plaintiff-respondent No.1 was in possession of the suit land. The oral
evidence led by the defendant-appellants does not inspire confidence in the
face of the documentary evidence led by the plaintiff-respondent No.1. No
cogent and reliable evidence has been shown to the Court by the learned
counsel which would establish that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was not in
possession of the suit land so as to deny him the relief of injunction. This
Court finds no reason to differ from the findings returned by both the Courts.
No other point was argued.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150275
RSA-1750-2019 (O&M) [5]
8. In view of the above, no question of law, much less any
substantial question of law, arises in the present case which requires
determination by this Court. The present appeal, being devoid of any merit,
is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed
off.
19.11.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Ankur JUDGE
NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
