Regular Second Appeal No. 3030 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 3030 of 2009
Date of Decision: August 18, 2009
Rajinder Parkash and others ...........Appellants
Versus
Sulakhan Singh and another ..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Arun Takhi, Advocate for the appellants.
**
Sabina, J.
Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining
the defendants from interfering with or dispossessing the plaintiff from the
suit land fully described in the head note of the plaint. The said suit of the
plaintiff was decreed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Batala vide
judgment and decree dated 17.2.2005. Aggrieved by the same, defendants
filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District
Judge (Adhoc),Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated
11.2.2009. Hence, the present appeal .
The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional
District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment reads as under:-
” 2. The brief facts are that plaintiff purchased suit land measuring
21 kanals 15 marlas as detailed in the heading of the plaint from
Regular Second Appeal No. 3030 of 2009 2Baldev Ram s/o Ganpat. Baldev Ram was a co-sharer/co-owner in
exclusive possession of the suit land. He sold the suit land by two
sale deeds dated 16.4.2001 and delivered vacant possession to
plaintiff. That the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land and
the defendants have got no right,title or interest over the same.
The defendants have threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from
the suit land. They were requested to desist from evil designs but
they refused. Hence, the suit.
3. Initially, the suit was filed against five defendants but later on
defendants Shanti Sarup and Narinder Singh were given up.
Remaining defendants contested the suit and admitted that Baldev
Ram was a co-sharer but exclusive possession was denied.
Purchase of suit land by plaintiff was also denied. It was also
denied that plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. That
defendant is a co-sharer in the suit land as Baldev Ram was not
exclusive owner in possession of the same. That defendant No.4
is owner in possession of land measuring 3 Kls bearing killa No.
27///12/2. Other paras of the plaint were denied and defendants
prayed for dismissal of the suit.
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed by the trial Court:-
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as
prayed for?OPP
2. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present
form?OPD
3. Relief”
Regular Second Appeal No. 3030 of 2009 3
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of
the opinion that this appeal is devoid of any merit.
Plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession with regard to the
property in dispute. The case of the plaintiff is that he had purchased the
suit property from Baldev Ram vide sale deeds Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P2
dated 16.4.2001 and 18.4.2001 respectively. Thereafter, the mutation was
sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of sale deed. Defendant
No.1-Rajinder Parkash, while appearing in the witness box in his cross-
examination, initially, denied any knowledge regarding execution of the sale
deed by his father. But later on, he admitted that the land was sold on
16.4.2001 and at that time, the entries in khasra girdawari were in the name
of his father-Baldev Ram. Mutation of the suit land was sanctioned in
favour of the plaintiff and he did not file any appeal against the said
mutation. He also admitted that Baldev Ram might have handed over the
possession of the suit land to the vendee. The learned trial Court, after
appreciating the evidence on record, held that the statement of defendant
No.1 in this regard was further corroborated by the witnesses examined by
the defendants. DW2- Dalip Singh, in his cross-examination, admitted that
Baldev Ram was in cultivating possession of the suit land before execution
of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 filed an
application for correctness of entries in the khasra girdwari against the
original owner and the said application was allowed. But the said order was
set aside by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide order dated 20.12.2004.
As per the revenue record, the copy of the jamabandi (Exhibit P2) and
Khasra girdwari (Exhibit P13), plaintiff is in possession of the suit property.
Regular Second Appeal No. 3030 of 2009 4
In these circumstances, both the Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of
the plaintiff as he could protect his possession qua the suit property.
No substantial question of law arises in this case which
would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is
dismissed.
( Sabina )
Judge
August 18, 2009
arya