Lal Chand And Another vs Phuman Singh on 23 November, 2009

 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH
                                            RSA No.4260 of 2009
                                     Date of decision : 23.11.2009
Lal Chand and another
                                                    ... Appellants
                           Versus
Phuman Singh
                                                    ...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA

Present:     Mr.H.S.Batth, Advocate for the appellants.

Sabina, J. (Oral)

The plaintiff-Phuman Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction

restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly and illegally

from the suit land. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by Civil Judge

(Jr.Divn.) Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 25.8.2006 . In appeal, the

Addl. District Judge, Ferozepur upheld the said judgment and decree vide

judgment and decree dated 4.4.2007. Hence, the present appeal has been filed

by the defendants.

The facts of the case as noticed by learned Additional District

Judge, Ferozepur in para Nos.2 to 3 of its judgment reads as under:-

“2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case of the plaintiff are that
he is absolute owner in possession of the suit land
measuring 8 kanal fully detailed nd described in para no.1
of the plaint. Previously, the suit land was owned by the
Provincial Govt. and the same was purchased by him from
the Provincial Govt. and mutation to this effect was also
sanctioned. The suit land was allotted to him on the basis
of his possession. His possession over the suit land is
lawful, peaceful and continuous being owner and the same
has also been recorded in the revenue record. The
defendants have got no concern either with possession or
with the title of the suit land. The defendants being
influential persons tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the
suit land but their efforts were foiled due to intervention of
RSA No.4260 of 2009(O&M) 2

respectable of the locality. As such plaintiff filed a suit for
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
dispossessing him from the suit land.

3. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and filed written
statement taking preliminary objections that the suit is
counter-blast to the application filed by defendant No.1 for
correction of Khasra girdawri and that the plaintiff has not
come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed
material facts from the court. On merits, it was pleaded that
plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land rather
defendant no.1 is in possession of the last for the last more
than 10 years. It was further pleaded that the suit land is
situated after crossing Indo-Pak fencing wire. Khasra
girdawri was wrongly recorded in favour of the plaintiff
and allotment of the suit land in faovur of the plaintiff is
wrong and illegal. It was further pleaded that when the
defendants came to know about the khasra girdawri in the
name of the plaintiff, he applied for correction of khasra
girdawri in the Court of A.C.II, Guru Har Sahai, District
Ferozepur. Rest of the averments made in the plaint were
denied being incorrect. Lastly, it was prayed that the suit of
the plaintiff may be dismissed with costs.”

From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were

framed by the learned trial Court:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed
for? OPP.

2. Whether plaintiff is in possession of the suit property?OPP.

3. Whether the defendants are forcibly and illegally
dispossessing the plaintiff over the suit land?OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts
from the Court?OPD.

5. Relief.”

RSA No.4260 of 2009(O&M) 3

After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the

opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be

dismissed.

The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction

restraining the respondents from dispossessing him forcibly from the suit land.

The plaintiff successfully led evidence to establish that he was

owner in possession of the suit land measuring 8 kanals. The Provincial Govt.

had transferred the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and in this regard

mutation No.168 was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff. The said mutation

was duly reflected in the revenue record. As per entry in the khasra-girdawari,

the plaintiff was earlier shown to be in possession of the suit land as gair

marusi. The appellant-defendants on the other hand, failed to establish that they

were in possession of the suit land.

Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the

parties have given a finding of fact that the plaintiff was in possession of the

suit property. The said finding of fact cannot be interfered by this Court in

appeal.

No substantial question of law arises for consideration by this

Court in this appeal. Dismissed.

[ SABINA ]
JUDGE
23.11.2009

sd