Mr. K.C. Puri. J.: -- CM No. 2823-C of 2015

There is delay of 123 days in re-filing the appeal. The same stands condoned on the grounds mentioned in the application.

Main case

The defendant-appellant has directed this regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 3.7.2014 passed by Mrs. Amarjot Bhatti, District Judge, Rupnagar vide which the appeal preferred by the present appellant against the judgment and decree dated 28.5.2013 passed by Ms. Sonali Singh, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ropar as dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, Pritam Singh filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in peaceful use and possession of plaintiff over the suit property situated within the lal lakir of village Gobindpura, Tehsil and District Ropar. The case of the plaintiff set forth in the plaint is that previously Manmohan Kaur wife of Baldev Singh daughter of Ajit Singh was the owner of the property in dispute and on 27.9.2005 in consideration of Rs.50,000/- Manmohan Kaur delivered the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and executed agreement in favour of the plaintiff.

3. The said suit was resisted by the defendant and defendant has pleaded that he has purchased the suit property vide sale deed dated 26.9.2007 from Manmohan Singh son of Ajit Singh son of Basant Singh. Manmohan Singh has inherited the property and he has handed over the possession of the property to the defendant.

4. In replication, the contents of written statement were denied whereas the stand taken in the plaint was reiterated as correct.

5. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form ?OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit ?OPD

4. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties ?OPD

5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ?OPD

6. Relief.

6. In order to prove his case, plaintiff himself stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and also examined Udham Singh as PW- 2 and closed the evidence.

7. The defendant himself stepped into the witness box as as DW-1 and examined Narinder Singh as DW-2, Manmohan Singh as DW-3 and closed his evidence.

8. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence returned finding in favour of the plaintiff to the extent that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. Issues No.2 to 5 were decided against the defendant and consequently, suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction was decreed with costs.

9. Feeling dis-satisfied with the judgment and decree dated 28.5.2013 passed by Ms. Sonali Singh, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ropar, the defendant preferred regular first appeal. The said appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 3.7.2014 passed by Mrs. Amarjot Bhatti, District Judge, Rupnagar.

10. The defendant-appellant aggrieved by both these judgments and decrees dated 28.5.2013 passed by Ms. Sonali Singh, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ropar and the judgment and decree dated 3.7.2014 passed by Mrs. Amarjot Bhatti, District Judge, Rupnagar, has preferred the present regular second appeal.

11. The appellant in paragraph No.10 of the grounds of appeal has mentioned that following substantial questions of law have arisen:-

(i) Whether the injunction can be granted against the owner?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff stands upon his own legs & not liable to take the advantage of others wrong?

(iii) Whether both the Courts below committed grave error in not considering the facts, evidence & law applicable therein?

(iv) Whether the finding of the Courts below is contrary to the evidence?

12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that plaintiff has to prove his case independently. The claim of the plaintiff is based on agreement to sell dated 27.9.2005, said to be executed by Manmohan Kaur daughter of Ajit Sin