R.S.A.No. 3589 of 2008 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
R.S.A.No. 3589 of 2008
Date of decision: 6.11.2009
Desa Singh
......Appellant
Versus
Mahla Singh and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate,
for the appellant.
****
SABINA, J.
Plaintiff Mahla Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction,
which was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Ferozepur vide
judgment and decree dated 21.8.2007. In appeal, the said judgment
and decree were set aside by the Additional District Judge,
Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 7.3.2008. Hence, the
present appeal by defendant No.1.
Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate
Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:-
“2. Plaintiff’s case, in brief, is that he is in
R.S.A.No. 3589 of 2008 2cultivating possession of land measuring 3 kanals 4
marlas comprised in Killa No.12/1/1 Min situated at village
Rao Ke Hithar for the last many years. The land is owned
by the Provincial Government Jamabandis and khasra
girdawris do contain his and his mother’s name. On the
other hand, the defendants have no concern, right or title
over the land in question. They are threatening to
dispossess him and refused to see sense. Hence, the
suit.
3. The defendant No.1 contested the suit raising
legal and factual objections but admitting that plaintiff is
resident of village Rao Ke Hithar. He asserted that Rect.
No.21 Killa No.12/1/1 Min consists of total land measuring
7 kanals 4 marlas. He is in actual and physical
possession of land measuring 2 kanals 12 marlas out of
Rect. No.21 Killa No.12/1 Min consists of total land
measuring 7 kanals 4 marlas. He is in actual and
physical possession of land measuring 2 kanals 12
marlas out of Rect. No.21 killa No.12/1 Min and land
measuring 1 kanal 8 marlas towards western side out of
land measuring 4 kanals 12 marlas bearing Rect. No.21
killa No.12/1 Min. His possession is recorded in the
record of rights. He has no concern with the remaining
land. As a matter of fact, plaintiff is not in possession of
R.S.A.No. 3589 of 2008 3any part of land measuring 7 kanals 4 marlas. He has no
cause of action and therefore, his suit deserves dismissal.
No written statement was filed on behalf of defendant
No.2.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed by the trial Court:-
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent
injunction as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its
present form as alleged? OPD
3. Relief. “
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of
the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction for
restraining the defendants from dis-possessing him from the suit land
bearing khasra No.12/1/1 Min (3-4).
Admittedly, initially khasra No.12/1/1 measured 7 kanals
4 marlas and thereafter, it was bifurcated into two khasra numbers
i.e. 12/1/1 Min (4-0) and 12/1/1 Min (3-4). The land was owned by
the Provincial Government. It has been observed by the learned
Additional District Judge in the impugned judgment that as per copy
of the jamabandi for the year 2003-04 placed on record, Mahla
Singh and Fauja Singh, sons of Bahadur Singh are in possession of
the suit land measuring 3 kanals 4 marlas. The plaintiff was in
R.S.A.No. 3589 of 2008 4
possession of land measuring 3 kanals 4 marlas of land bearing
khasra No. 12/1/1 Min. The defendants are in possession of khasra
No. 12/1/1 Min measuring 4 kanals. The said finding of fact arrived
at by the learned Additional District Judge, after appreciating the
evidence led by the parties on record, calls for no interference by this
Court in appeal. The defendants have been restrained from dis-
possessing the plaintiff from the suit land except in due course of
law.
No substantial question of law arises in this regular
second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
November 06, 2009
anita