Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Vinod K.Sharma, J.
Puran
Versus
State Of Haryana
Decided On : MARCH 15, 2007
Injunction - Land Ownership Dispute - The court found that the plaintiffs' claim of ownership and possession of the land could not be accepted based on limited evidence, and the nature of the land recorded in the official documents. The court also rejected the argument that even a trespasser is entitled to injunction against the true owner, as settled possession for a sufficiently long period was not proved in the present case.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-appellants claimed ownership and possession of land, seeking a decree for permanent injunction against the State. The lower appellate Court found in favor of the State, rejecting the plaintiffs' claim based on the nature of the land recorded in official documents and lack of substantial evidence of possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs' claim of ownership and possession could not be accepted based on limited evidence and the nature of the land recorded in official documents. The court also rejected the argument that even a trespasser is entitled to injunction against the true owner, as settled possession for a sufficiently long period was not proved in the present case.
Issues: Ownership and possession of land, entitlement to injunction against the true owner, sufficiency of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of substantial evidence of possession and the nature of the land recorded in official documents. The court also emphasized the requirement of proving settled possession for a sufficiently long period to support a claim for injunction against the true owner.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower appellate Court's decision in favor of the State.
Vinod K.Sharma, J.
1. Present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.
2. The plaintiff-appellants had claimed a decree for permanent injunction against the State claiming themselves to be the owners in possession as co-sharers of land measuring 12 kanals. It was further claimed that the plaintiff-appellants were in peaceful and continuous possession of the suit land for the last 30 years and further Khasra Girdawari entries since 1990 are in their favour.
3. Learned lower appellate Court has recorded a positive finding of fact that the land belongs to the State and the claim of the appellants that they were in possession could not be accepted merely on the basis of three stray entries in the Khasra Girdawari which were not incorporated in the Jamabandis. No Jamabandi showing the possession of the appellants was placed on record. Furthermore, the nature of the land recorded in Jamabandi was gair mumkin nadi. In view of this, learned lower appellate Court has reversed the finding recorded by the learned trial Court which was based merely on the statement of DW-1 wherein he has stated that the plaintiffs were in possession of the land in suit.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Rome Gowda (D) by Lrs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. and Anr., to contend that even a trespasser is entitled to injunction against the true owner. I have gone through the judgment and find that in the said case settled possession of the parties for a sufficiently long period was proved on record. However, in the present case, the finding of fact recorded is that the appellants were not in possession of the property in dispute. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
