IMPORTANT POINT
Permanent Injunction--Even if ostensible owner in possession of suit land gave it on lease to plaintiff, he cannot be dispossessed from suit land except in due course of law even by who claims to be owners of suit land.

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- Jagjit Singh defendant no. 3 has filed the second appeal having lost in both the courts below.

2. Plaintiff-respondent Rajwant Singh filed suit against Jagjit Singh appellant as defendant no. 3 and against his father Gurnam Singh and brother Manjit Singh as defendants no. 1 and 2 alleging that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land measuring 6 kanals 12 marlas having taken the same on lease from Karam Singh (brother of defendant no. 1 and uncle of defendants no. 2 and 3) vide Pattanama dated 7.3.1985 and since then the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. Defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land forcibly and threatened to dispossess him in future. Consequently, the plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land and from interfering in his possession thereof.

3. Defendants, inter alia, pleaded that the suit land was owned by Chanan Singh father of defendant no. 1 and grand father of defendants no. 2 and 3 and in view of his Will dated 15.3.1982, defendants no. 2 and 3 have become owners in possession of the suit land. Karam Singh son of Chanan Singh never came in possession of the suit land and therefore, he could not give its possession to the plaintiff. It was denied that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. It was also pleaded that aforesaid Karam Singh and others had filed a suit for declaration and also sought relief of possession and it would depict that Karam Singh himself was not in possession of the suit land. In that suit, Karam Singh also made statement admitting that he and his other two brothers Major Singh and Gurmail Singh had no concern with the suit land in view of Will dated 15.3.1982 which was admitted to be genuine.

4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala vide judgment and decree dated 22.9.2001 decreed plaintiff’s suit restraining defendants from interfering in plaintiff’s possession over the suit land and from dispossessing him therefrom except in due course of law. First appeal, preferred by defendant no. 3 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 14.5.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no. 3 has preferred the instant appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that Karam Singh filed suit on 18.11.1995 seeking declaration and consequential relief of possession implying that he was not in possession of the suit land. Karam Singh also made statement in that suit admitting the Will by Chanan Singh in favour of defendants no. 2 and 3. The contention cannot be accepted because any action of Karam Singh after having handed over possession to plaintiff would not bind the plaintiff. The plaintiff had come in possession of the suit land pursuant to Pattanama dated 7.3.1985. Consequently, any suit filed by Karam Singh 10 years thereafter would not adversely effect the rights of the plaintiff-respondent.

7. On the contrary the plaintiff has duly proved the Pattanama dated 7.3.1985 executed by Karam Singh whereby he leased out the suit land to the plaintiff and gave its possession to him. It is significant to notice that aforesaid Pattanama was witnessed by Gurnam Singh defendant no. 1 who is father of defendants no. 2 and 3. If Karam Singh had not been in possession of the suit land and had not given its possession to the plaintiff, there is no reason why Gurnam Singh would have witnessed the said Pattanama. In this context, it is significant to notice that Gurnam Singh defendant no. 1 has not stepped into witness box and therefore, adverse presumption arises against the defendants. It may be added that all the defendants jointly contested the suit and there is no clash of interest between defendant no. 1 and his sons defendants no. 2 and 3. The defendant never challenged the aforesaid Pattanama and on the