JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 23.4.1979 passed by Additional District Judge, Narnaul in Civil Appeal No. 65/89 of 1977/1978 confirming judgment and decree dated 16.5.1977 passed by Sub Judge, 1st Class, Mohindergarh in Civil Suit No. 267 of 5.9.1975 vide which he dismissed the suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant. The respondents have filed cross-objection for setting aside the finding recorded by the Lower Appellate Court on Issue No. 1.
2. Before proceeding further, I may mention that in the memo of appeal, the appellant had framed the following question of law:-
“(a) Whether the courts below can ignore the well established principle of law. “possession follows title” in this case; and
(b) Whether the courts below were justified in law in refusing the alternative relief for possession after holding title of the plaintiff to the land in dispute.”
3. However, while admitting the appeal on 19.11.1979, this Court opined that only question No. 2 would require consideration by this Court.
4. For the purpose of deciding whether the Courts below erred in not granting alternative relief of possession to the appellant, I may briefly notice the relevant facts:
5. The plaintiff appellant filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents by alleging that House Nos. 207 to 255 and Ahata No. 208 alongwith Goshala situated in the abadi of Village Budin, Tehsil Mohindergarh belongs to him since the time of his grandfather and a portion of the property is being used for tying catties and for collecting refuse and that the defendant-respondents were bent upon to dispossess him by use of force and without the authority of law.
6. In their written statement, defendant-respondents No. 1 and 2 pleaded that the disputed Ahaia was not in possession of the plaintiff and that he did not have the locus standi to file the suit. They also raised the plea of limitation.
In his replication, the appellant controverted the pleas taken in the written statement.
On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues;-
“1. Whether the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 3 and 4 are owners in possession of the suit land?
2. Whether the suit is not in time?
3. Whether the property has not been properly described in the plaint?
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?
5. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction ?
6. Relief.”
7. The parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence. In support of his claim, the plaintiff examined Nahar Singh PW1, Panna, PW2 and himself appeared as PW3, Jai Dayal, Field Kangugo, who was appointed as Local Commissioner to demarcate the disputed site was examined as PW4. The contesting defendants examined Balia DW1, Pirbhu DW2, and Johri Mal DW3.
8. On a consideration of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the trial court decided all the issues against the plaintiff-appellant and dismissed the suit.
9. On appeal, Additional District Judge, Narnaul reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court on issue No. 1 and held that the plaintiff-appellant is owner of Ahata No. 207 and H. Nos. 211, 212, 213 and 215. The Appellate Court further held that the suit was not barred by time. However, he confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court by observing that the suit was not maintainable in its present form, inasmuch as, no evidence was produced by the plaintiff-appellant to show that he had been dispossessed by the defendants. The Lower Appellate Court observed that even though the plaintiff had filed an application for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for substitution of the House Nos. but no prayer was made for passing a decree for possession by alleging that he had been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the judgments under challenge. In my opinion, concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below that the suit land was in the possession of the defendants-respondents on the date of filing of the suit is a pure finding of fact based on correct appreciation of evidence. So, Gopi Chand, learned counsel for the appellant could not show that the finding recorded by the Courts below on the factum of possession of land is based on misreading of evidence or any material piece of evidence was over-looked by them. Therefore, 1 do not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees. I also agree with the learned lower Appellate Court that the appellant is not entitled to the decree of possession because he had neither pleaded nor proved that the defendants have dispossessed him during the pendency of the suit.
No other point has been argued.
For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed.
The cross-objection filed by the contesting respondents are also dismissed in view of
the dismissal of the second appeal. However, it is clarified that the finding recorded by
the Lower Appellate Court shall not be binding on the contesting respondents in any future litigation.