Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarwan Singh vs Ram Sarup on 9 September, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
106+206 RSA-2419-1997 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 09.09.2024
SARWAN SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS .... Appellants
VERSUS
RAM SARUP (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the respondents.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
CM-9165-C-2024
1. This is an application for impleading the legal representatives
of the deceased appellant.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Legal representatives of the deceased appellant, as mentioned in para No.4
of the application, are ordered to be impleaded as parties. Vakalatnama
signed by the legal representative of the deceased appellant has already been
appended with the application. The same is taken on record. Amended
memo of parties is also taken on record. Registry to scan and tag the same at
an appropriate place.
RSA-2419-1997
3. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the
plaintiff-appellant, namely, Sarwan Singh (now deceased) challenging the
106+206 RSA-2419-1997 (O&M) -2-
judgment and decree dated 17.02.1995 passed by the Trial Court and the
judgment and decree dated 05.08.1997 passed by the First Appellate Court.
4. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
appellant filed the present suit for permanent injunction averring therein that
he was owner in possession of the site in dispute fully described in the
plaint. The site in dispute was averred to be used by him for keeping heaps
of manure and tethering his cattle. It was also averred that the plaintiff-
appellant had grown a kikar tree in the site in dispute. Since the defendant-
respondents were alleged to have been threatening to dispossess the
plaintiff-appellant, hence the suit for permanent injunction.
5. In written statement the defendant-respondents denied the
possession as well as the ownership of the plaintiff-appellant. They pleaded
that they are in possession of the site measuring 88 feet x 54 feet as shown in
the site plan (Ex.DW-4/A). It was further the case that the remaining part of
the suit property is a toba (pond) and is at a lower level than the portion in
his possession and that there was water standing in the toba (pond).
6. Replication was filed reiterating the contents of the plaint and
denying those of the written statement.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed :
1. Whether plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit
property ? OPP
2. Whether suit is not maintainable as such ? OPD
106+206 RSA-2419-1997 (O&M) -3-
3. Whether defendant is entitled to special costs ? If
so, to what extent ? OPD
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed
for ? OPP
5. Relief.
8. The Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree
dated 17.02.1995. 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 05.08.1997. Hence, the present
regular second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant.
9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that
the bara in front of the house of the plaintiff-appellant was being used for
tethering cattle and for keeping heaps of manure as is normally done in
villages and that since the defendant-respondents threatened to dispossess
the plaintiff-appellant, the suit was filed. Learned counsel would further
contend that the oral testimonies of the witnesses clearly reveal that the site
in dispute was in possession of the plaintiff-appellant.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant-respondents
would contend that both the Courts did not find the plaintiff-appellant in
possession of the suit property. Rather, the suit property is adjoining the land
of the defendant-respondents. Even the site plan produced by the plaintiff-
appellant was not found to be correct.
11. Heard.
106+206 RSA-2419-1997 (O&M) -4-
12. In the present case undisputedly the site in dispute is a vacant
piece of land. It is trite that the possession of a vacant piece of land goes
with the title. The plaintiff-appellant miserably failed to show that he was
the owner of the suit property. Qua the possession, both the Courts
concurrently found that the plaintiff-appellant had failed to prove his
possession over the suit property. Even the site plan which has been
produced by the plaintiff-appellant was found to be vague and confusing.
Infact, in the site plan a part of the phirni was shown to be a part of the
property in dispute. It was also found that there was a toba (pond) on the site
in dispute. Both the Courts further concurrently found that the site in dispute
was an open space which was being used for common purposes. The learned
counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has not been able to convince this Court
by pointing to any cogent evidence to show that the plaintiff-appellant was
in possession of the suit property. In the absence of the same, no fault can be
found with the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts.
13. 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 appeal, being devoid of any merits, is
accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
09.09.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
