The burden of proof lies on the party asserting a fact, and a plaintiff can only succeed on the strength of their own case.

Sneh Prashar, J.

The instant appeal has been filed by appellant-plaintiff Balwan Singh (hereinafter referred to as the “appellant”) assailing the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon as well as judgment and decree dated 19.12.2013 passed in Civil Suit No.RBT-1057 of 01.03.2008/19.01.2013 by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pataudi, District Gurgaon, by virtue of which suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant against respondents-defendants Chatter Singh and others (hereinafter referred to as the “respondents”) was dismissed and the appeal preferred by him was also dismissed.

2. Precisely, the facts are that the appellant claimed to be owner-in-possession of a residential plot situated in the Lal Dora Abadi of village Siwari, Tehsil Farrukhnagar, District Gurgaon shown with letters ABCDEF and in red colour in the site-plan attached with the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”). He pleaded that a pucca room stands constructed on the suit property and he is residing in the same. Alleging that the respondents are strong handed persons and are bent upon to interfere in his peaceful possession and ownership, he prayed for a permanent injunctive order against them.

3. Respondents No.1 to 4 contested the suit. In the joint written statement filed by respondents No.1 to 4, they denied that the appellant is owner or is in possession of the suit property. According to them, Smt. Santosh (respondent No.5) is the sole owner-in-possession of the suit property by way of purchase through a registered sale deed and is residing in the property with her husband (respondent No.1) and children. They also alleged that since the appellant has no right, title or interest in the suit property, the question of interference by them in his ownership and possession does not arise.

4. Separate written statement was filed by Smt. Santosh (respondent No.5). Disputing the claim of the appellant, she submitted that she is actual owner of the suit property and had purchased the same by virtue of sale deed No.4509 dated 22.02.2008 for a valuable consideration of Rs.35,000/- from M/s Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. who was the owner of the suit property alongwith other property by virtue of the sale deed No.6272 executed and registered on 21.09.1988. The room constructed on the eastern side of the plot was in existence at the time of purchase of the suit property and subsequently she constructed a room measuring 13 ft. x 15 ft. on the North-West corner and a tin shed measuring 13 ft. x 10'-6” towards the West-South corner beside raising height of the boundary wall on all four sides. A big iron gate had been installed and she had been using the property for her residence.

5. On the rival contentions of the parties, following issues were framed:-

(1) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the residential plot as detailed in para no.1 of the plaint? OPP.

(2) Whether the sale deed vasika no.4509 dated 22.02.2008 is null and void and not binding upon the right, title and interest of the plaintiff? OPP.

(3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

(4) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.

(5) Whether the plaintiff has not come with clean hands before this court? OPD.

(6) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act, conduct etc. from filing the present suit? OPD.

(7) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or right as alleged? OPD.

(8) Relief.

6. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their rival contentions.

7. Considering the ocular and documentary evidence produced by the parties and the submissions made on their behalf, learned trial Court finding that the appellant had failed to prove her ownership or possession over the suit property dismissed the suit of the appellant vide impugned judgment and decree dated 19.12.2013.

8. Appellant preferred an appeal against the judgm