RSA No. 2170 of 2011 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
RSA No. 2170 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 26.5.2011.
Ram Sarup .......Appellant
Vs.
Mohan Lal and others ......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate
for the appellant.
.....
SABINA, J.
Plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for permanent
injunction claiming himself to be exclusive owner in possession of
30 eucalyptus trees which had been planted on the boundary
wall of Killa Nos. 7 and 8.
Defendants, in their written statement, denied the
contentions in the plaint. It was averred that eucalyptus trees
were standing in the land belonging to the defendants bearing
Killa No. 7//4, 7//3/1, 3/2, 3/3 and 3/4.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed by the trial Court:-
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for
permanent injunction is prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and
RSA No. 2170 of 2011 (O&M) -2-cause of action to file and maintain the present
suit? OPD
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not
maintainable? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act
and conduct to file and maintain the present
suit? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and
material facts? OPD
6. Relief.”
Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgment and decree
dated 11.3.2010 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by
the said judgment and decree, plaintiff filed an appeal and the
same was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide
judgment and decree dated 2.4.2011. Hence, the present appeal
by the plaintiff.
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I
am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal.
Plaintiff had filed the suit claiming himself to be the
owner of 30 eucalyptus tress in dispute. The case of the plaintiff
was that the eucalyptus trees were standing on the boundary wall
of Killa No. 7 and 8, whereas the case of the defendant was that
the eucalyptus trees were standing on their land bearing Killa
No. 7. On an application, moved by the plaintiff, a local
commissioner was appointed vide order dated 4.6.2008 and was
directed to visit the spot and demarcate the land. The local
commissioner-Naib Tehsildar, Shahbad inspected the spot on
18.5.2009 and submitted his report. As per the demarcation
RSA No. 2170 of 2011 (O&M) -3-
report, the local commissioner found that the trees were standing
on the land of the defendants. On the basis of the said report,
the courts below had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
May 26, 2011
Gurpreet