RSA No.2568 of 2009 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 2568 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: November 17, 2009
Dera Bassu Puri Chela Sada Puri Chela Shambu Puri .....Appellant
Versus
Ram Kumar and others ..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Dr.Parveen Hans, Advocate for the appellant.
**
Sabina, J.
Plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction. The said suit of the
plaintiffs was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Hansi vide judgment and decree dated 25.4.2008. Aggrieved by the same,
defendant filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional
District Judge, Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2008. Hence,
the present appeal by the defendant-Dera Basau Puri Chela Sada Puri Chela
Shambu Puri.
The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional
District Judge, in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment reads as under:-
” 2. Brief facts of the care are respondents filed suit for permanent
injunction against the appellant Dera Basau Puri Chela Sada puri
Chela Shambu Puri (for short appellant Dera) alleging the
respondents are in possession of land detailed in head note of the
plaint, situated within the revenue estate of village Bhatla Tehsil
RSA No.2568 of 2009 (O&M) 2Hansi District Hisar and are cultivating the suit land as gair
marusi tenant under the appellant Dera being owner of it. The
respondents, pleaded, the suit land, was un even and many wild
trees, bushes were standing in it. Appellant Dera gave the suit
land to forefathers of the respondents for cultivation after leveling
it and removing roots of trees and uprooting bushes etc. The
forefathers of the respondents made the suit land cultivable and
were cultivating the same as tenants on nominal rent for the last
more than 75-80 years. Appellant Dera filed civil suit No.217 of
1987, 225-C of 1984, 215-C of 1987, 220-C of 1987, 218-C of
1987, 228-C of 1987, 219-C of 1987 and 222-C of 1984 (for short
previous suit) in which compromise arrived between the parties
and respondents agreed to pay Lagan @ 30/- per annum, per acre,
to the appellant Dera.
3. Respondents alleged the possession of the respondents over the
suit land was adverse and it has ripened into ownership in favour
of respondents and at the time of filing the suit, they had sown
the crops of Jawar and Bajra in the suit land. The Ravi Puri and
others Chelas (disciples) of Dera Basau Puri had passed away 6-7
years prior to the filing of the suit. There was no Mahant or
Manager of appellant Dera in village Bhatla to manage the affairs
of the appellant Dera as well as suit land. Chandanpuri who
alleged himself Chela of the appellant Dera, infact, had no
relation with appellant Dera in any manner, neither, he lived at
village Bhatla. On 6.6.2006 Chandanpuri alongwith other persons
came in the suit land and threatened to the respondents to
RSA No.2568 of 2009 (O&M) 3dispossess him/them from it forcibly and illegally. However,
respondents with the help of others prevailed upon Chandanpuri
and sent him back. He threatened to the respondents to dispossess
him/them from the suit land after summer vacation. Again on
9.7.2006 Chandanpuri alongwith some unknown persons armed
with deadly weapons such as lathi, danda came on the suit land,
threatened to the respondent/respondents that he (Chandanpuri)
would forcibly occupy the suit land.
4. Appellant Dera through Chandanpuri filed written statement,
controverting the allegations of the respondent/respondents.
Appellant Dera pleaded, the suit land is owned by it and it was not
un-even and respondents are cultivating it as tenant on payment of
1/3rd batai (produce) but they had not paid any Batai (share) crops
till date and they are not vacating the suit land and they have also
given beatings to Mahant Chandanpuri regarding which case is
pending in the court of SDM Hansi. The entries in the revenue
record have been incorporated in favour of the
respondent/respondents in collusion with the revenue officials and
these are illegal and the rent receipts/lagan relied upon by the
respondent/respondents are bogus and illegal.”
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 the plaintiff has no locus-standi and cause of action to
file the present suit?OPP
RSA No.2568 of 2009 (O&M) 43.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD
4.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joiner and mis-
joinder of necessary party ?OPD
5.Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct
from filing the present suit?OPD
6.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of
limitation?OPD
7.Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the true and material facts
from the court if so to what effect?OPD
8.Whether the plaintiff has not affixed the proper court fee for the
purpose of valuation of present suit and jurisdiction?OPD
9.Whether the defendant is entitled for special cost u/s 35A
CPC?OPD
10. Relief”
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of
the opinion that this appeal is devoid of any merit.
Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction that the
defendant be restrained from interfering in their peaceful possession.
Admittedly, the suit land is owned by the appellant-Dera. It has been
noticed by the learned Additional District in its judgment that DW1-
Chandanpuri deposed that the Dera was not in existence for the last nine
years and was lying deserted. He was living at Hansi in Dera Baba
Jagannath Puri after he had suffered injuries. The civil litigation was also
pending between the parties regarding the land in dispute. At the time of
Baba Ravipuri, he was not aware, if any, compromise had been effected
between the parties. He admitted that he was appointed as a Chela of Baba
RSA No.2568 of 2009 (O&M) 5
Budhpuri on 21.1.1996. He also admitted that the suit land was given to the
forefathers of the plaintiffs by Mahant of Dera Basan Puri. The learned
Additional District Judge in its judgment in paras 9 and 10 has held as
under:-
“9. Admitted facts need not to be proved. The admission of the
Chandanpuri as DW1 before the court below makes crystal clear
the respondent/respondents is/are in possession of the suit land
for the last so many years. Whether compromise Ex.C1 arrived at
between the parties to the proceedings in previous suit relating to
the suit land was genuine or illegal or fraudulent transaction is not
the subject matter of the suit filed before the court below from
which these appeals have been arisen. The appellant Dera has
admitted the filing of subsequent suit in civil court at Hansi
questioning the legality of compromise Ex.C1 arrived at between
the parties in previous suit.
10. The pivot of the case of the respondent/respondents before
the court below is revolving around the possession over the suit
land and as per own version of the appellant Dera,
respondent/respondents is/are in possession of the suit land and
the court below rightly held that the respondent/respondents
cannot be dispossessed from the suit land except following the
due process of law.”
Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on
record, have given a finding of fact that the plaintiffs were in possession of
the suit land. Consequently, they could not be dispossessed from the suit
land except in due course of law.
RSA No.2568 of 2009 (O&M) 6
No substantial question of law arises in this regular
second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court,
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
(Sabina)
Judge
November 17, 2009
arya