The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to establish ownership and possession over the suit land in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction.

Sanjay Karol, J

Plaintiff (Satya Devi), appellant herein filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against defendant Ram Swaroop (respondent herein). The plaintiff was seeking a decree to the effect that she is the lawful owner of the suit premises and the respondent herein (defendant) be restrained from interfering with her peaceful possession. The factum of ownership of the suit land was clearly denied by the defendant in his written statement.

2. The trial Court, On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues on 12.1.2004:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the suit as alleged? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi? OPD

5. Relief.

3. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence (oral and documentary) led by the parties, came to the conclusion that plaintiff had failed to establish the factum of her ownership. Consequently, vide judgment dated 26.2.2010, passed in Civil Suit No.26/03 RBT No.548/08/2003 titled as Satya Devi versus Ram Swaroop, learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Court No.IV, Una, District Una, HP, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit.

4. Assailing the said judgment, the appellant filed an appeal, which also stands dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Una, Himachal Pradesh, vide judgment dated 26.09.2011, passed in Civil Appeal No.21/2010, titled as Smt. Satya Devi versus Ram Swaroop.

5. Significantly, the lower Appellate Court has also held that the plaintiff has failed to establish her possession over the suit land. The findings returned by the trial Court stands affirmed by the lower Appellate Court.

6. Having perused the record, I see no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment. The gift deed Ex.DA does not establish ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land.

7. Consequently, I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. In my considered view, no question of law, much less, substantial question of law arises for consideration before this Court. Hence, the present appeal stands dismissed.