RSA No. 2447 of 2009 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
RSA No. 2447 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision : 8.12.2009
Mani Ram ..... Appellant
vs
Shanti Saroop and another ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the appellant .
Mr. R. P. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the respondents.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The plaintiff is in appeal before this court against the concurrent
findings recorded by both the courts below whereby suit filed by him for
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into his peaceful
possession over Baithak, court yard and open sehan, was dismissed.
Briefly the facts are that the appellant-plaintiff claimed that he was
owner in possession over a room, Baithak, court yard and sehan as mentioned in
the plaint. He was using the open court yard in front of the Baithak for the purpose
of placing fodder, fuel, wood and other miscellaneous purpose since the time of his
forefathers and the houses of the defendants-respondents are situated in the
vicinity. They have no right, title or interest in the property but with a view to grab
the open sehan, they were regularly interfering in the peaceful possession of the
appellant, which necessitated the filing of the present suit. Both the courts below
did not find merit in the contention raised by the appellant-plaintiff and dismissed
the suit.
Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submitted that the
respondents in the present case had admitted that the plaintiff is owner in
possession of the room, Baithak and the small open space in front thereof still
both the courts below dismissed the suit filed by him. He submitted that the
respondents have not been able to prove their ownership and possession over the
property and in the absence thereof the case set up by the appellant-plaintiff
deserved to be decreed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants-respondents
submitted that possession of the appellant-plaintiff on a room, Baithak and small
open space in front thereof is not in dispute. The subject matter of dispute is the
open court yard thereafter which is in the ownership of the respondents. The
RSA No. 2447 of 2009 -2-
appellant-plaintiff is not at all concerned with the open space in dispute. The effort
of the appellant is to encroach upon that portion of open space which is in fact
owned by the respondents-defendants. The admission made by the defendants in
the suit is only qua the room, Baithak and small space in front thereof and not the
entire open space which is substantial. In the present case the appellant had not
been able to make out his case as no independent evidence was led by him to prove
that the appellant was in possession of the property in dispute.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit
in the present appeal. The findings recorded by the courts below are plain and
simple findings of facts recorded on correct appreciation of evidence produced on
record which do not give rise to any question of law much less a substantial
question of law.
Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any
material evidence produced by him on record which was either not considered or
misread by the learned court below to enable him to substantiate the plea regarding
perversity in the findings recorded by the courts below. It is not in dispute that to
prove his possession, the appellant did not produce any independent witness in his
evidence. He did not even examine the draftsman who had prepared the site plan
produced on record by him. As against this, the defendants had produced
substantial evidence in the form of independent witnesses on record to submit that
the property in dispute was in fact in ownership and possession of its true owner.
It is also admitted by the appellant-plaintiff that the suit land was
owned by three brothers, namely Harnam, Udho Ram and Har Gobind. The
plaintiff is grand-son of Harnam and is in possession of his share in the suit land.
As the son of Har Gobind, namely, Jiva Nand had four daughters, his share came
to his daughters. Udho Ram had a son Dyal Chand, who is defendant no. 1’s father,
is also in possession of his share. The daughters of Jiva Nand had sold their shares
to Bimla Devi wife of defendant no. 1 and that sale-deeds were proved on record
by the defendants which though were in the knowledge of the plaintiff but were
never challenged by him. Even the attesting witness was produced as a witness by
the respondents in the evidence led by them.
Considering the aforementioned facts, in my opinion, the appeal
lacks merits and the same deserves to be dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
8.12.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge