Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 1602
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J.
Mahant Vasudev Dass Mohtmim - Appellant
Versus
Thakur Dawara Gaddi Bawa Lal Ji Maharaj Dhianpur and others - Respondents
RSA No.2209 of 2013 (O&M)
Decided On : 07-11-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. G.K.S. Taank, Advocate
A suit for permanent injunction can only be maintained if the plaintiff proves possession of the suit property.
Headnote:
Possession - Permanent Injunction - Plaintiff-appellant failed to prove possession - Dismissal of suit for permanent injunction upheld
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction, claiming possession of certain properties. However, the trial court found that the plaintiff failed to prove possession and therefore not entitled to relief. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal, noting the plaintiff's conduct in a previous similar case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction could not be maintained without proving possession. The court also noted the plaintiff's conduct in a previous similar case, indicating lack of credibility.
Issues: The main issue was the plaintiff's entitlement to relief for permanent injunction without proving possession. The court also considered the plaintiff's conduct in a previous case as relevant to the current case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a suit for permanent injunction can only be maintained if the plaintiff proves possession of the suit property. Additionally, the plaintiff's conduct in a previous case can be considered in evaluating the credibility of the plaintiff's claims.
Final Decision: The regular second appeal was dismissed, and the decisions of the lower courts were upheld.
CM-6605-2013
1. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 35 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
CM-6184-C-2014
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Annexures A-1 to A-6 are permitted to be taken on record.
Main case
3. Plaintiff-appellant is in regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below.
4. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from illegally and forcibly interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. The details of the property as described in the head-note of the plaint are extracted as under:-
(A) Land measuring 40 Kanals 13 Marlas comprised in Khewat 82, 328, Khatauni 193, 653, Rect.158 Killa 7/2 (3-1), 8 (3-18), 13/1 (2-0), Rect. 285 Killa 7/2 (4-10), 2/2 (5-12), 3 (8-0), 4/1 (5-12), 8 (8-0), as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 2002-2003 situated in Kalanaur H.B. No.103, Tehsil Gurdaspur
(B) Mandir of Thakur Dawara Mohant Bhagwan Dass bounded as below :-
North : Street, House of Piara Lal
East : Street
South : House of Sh. Mehnga Ram, Street
West : Haveli of Joginder Singh Mistry, Kothi of Dharam Pal Vohra situated in Mohalla Thaki Kalanaur.
(C) One plot having a boundary wall and gate and a room constructed thereon bearing dimensions and boundaries as follows:-
North : 38' Haveli of Pt. Hans Raj
East : 45' Public Street
South : 38' Public Street
West : 45' Kothi of Sh. Yash Pal Vohra situated in Kalanaur Tehsil, Gurdaspur.
(D) One shop bounded as below:-
North : House of Des Raj
East : Shop of Khazan Chand
South : Bazar
West : Gali situated in Kalanaur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur."
5. Plaintiff claims to be a Mohtmim of Thakur Dawara, a religious place. He had filed a suit against Thakur Dawara Gaddi Bawa Lal Ji, again a religious place.
6. Learned trial court after appreciating the evidence available on the file held that the plaintiff has himself admitted that property mentioned in the head-note under heading ‘A’ i.e. 40K-13M is not in his possession. Plaintiff also admitted that property in dispute is in possession of one Ashwani Kumar. Learned trial court further found that the property mentioned in the head-note with mark ‘B’ is part of a temple, where idol of Bawa Lal Ji is installed. Whereas, the property mark ‘C’ is being used as a Sarai i.e. place for the residence of devotees and visitors. Learned trial court also held that since the plaintiff has only filed a suit for permanent injunction and failed to prove his possession, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief. Plaintiff filed the first appeal. Learned first appellate court after re-appreciating the evidence available on the file dismissed the appeal and further recorded a finding, which is extracted as under:-
“Further more, it is an admitted fact that the appellant earlier also filed a civil suit for injunction against Mahant Narain Dass Chela Mahant Dawarka Dass, Mohtmim of Thakur Dawara Gaddi Bawa Lal Ji Maharaj, Dhianpur, with regard to the same properties, which are invovled in this case. Copy of the plaint of said case is Ex.D-1. Above said Mahant Narain Dass died n 10.09.2011 and Defendant No.1 Mahant Ram Sunder Dass filed an application Ex.D-3 for impleading him as defendant in place of Mahant Narain Dass in that case on 24.10.2011, but instead of contesting that suit, the appellant got the said suit, dismissed as withdrawn by making a statement Ex.D-2 on 16.02.2005, and just after five days of the dismissal of the previous suit, the appellant again filed this suit and the plaint of this suit as well as plaint of previous suit are exactly the same. No explanation has been given qua filing of this suit by the appellant as he could have contested the previous suit also against respondent No.1. This shows that conduct of the appellant is not above board and he is trying to hid something somewhere from the court.”
7. Present suit is only for permanent injunction. Plaintiff has not filed the suit
