Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 1462
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
Rattan Kumar - Appellant
Vs.
Iman Kumar and others - Respondents
RSA No. 1529 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 15-05-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajinder Singh Rana, Adv.
The appellant's failure to prove ownership and possession of the disputed property led to the dismissal of the suit.
Headnote:
Property Dispute - Ownership and Possession - [Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure] - The court dismissed the appellant's suit for permanent injunction as he failed to prove his ownership and possession of the disputed property. The appellant's claim based on a letter from the Gram Panchayat and a site plan was not substantiated with convincing evidence. The court affirmed the lower courts' findings and concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant claimed ownership and possession of a disputed property and filed a suit for permanent injunction. The trial court and the lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit as the appellant failed to prove his claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to prove his ownership and possession of the disputed property, as his evidence was not convincing. The court affirmed the lower courts' findings and concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement for a decree for permanent and mandatory injunction, the maintainability of the suit, locus standi, clean hands, jurisdiction of the Civil Court, and relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellant's failure to prove ownership and possession of the disputed property led to the dismissal of the suit. The court affirmed the lower courts' findings and concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the court found no merit in it.
Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.
1. Having failed before both the courts below, the appellant-plaintiff has filed the present regular second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra and affirming that of Civil Judge (JD) Pehowa dated 04.03.2015 whereby suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction has been dismissed.
2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant-plaintiff was owner in possession of a bara shown as ABCD in the site plan attached with the plaint. The appellant had planted trees in an area measuring 33 feet x 43.6 feet existing in the Eastern side of the said bara and its remaining portion was being used by him for domestic purposes peacefully and without any hindrances from any quarter. It was claimed by the appellant/plaintiff that the suit property had been given to him by the Gram Panchayat on 11.1.1989 through a writing duly signed by the Sarpanch and other respectable persons. Defendant No.1-respodnent was also given a bara towards the eastern side of his bara and a wall marked as AB shown in read colour in the site plan had been constructed by him out of his own expenses. According to the appellant, the respondents wanted to encroach upon the same. Upon notice, the respondents pleaded that under the garb of the suit, the appellant wanted to encroach upon their property which was shown in green and red colour in the site plan dated 28.8.2012. It was further stated that a partition wall marked with letters AB and shown in red colour in the site plan existing between the properties of the parties had been removed by the appellant plaintiff himself. Further, the Gram Panchayat was not competent to decide the matter qua the property of the respondents.
3. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:-
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not legally maintainable in the present form? OPD
4. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file and maintain the present suit? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts from the Court? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff is stopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD
7. Whether Civil Court has not jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD
8. Relief?”
4. On appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the appellant/plaintiff failed to prove his claim by cogent and convincing evidence. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 04.03.2015 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Court which met the same fate. Hence the instant appeal by the appellant-plaintiff claiming the following substantial questions of law:-
“i. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Ld. Courts below is illegal and perverse?
ii. Whether the findings of the Ld. Courts below is suffering from in apparent perversity as the face of it being contrary to law and facts on record?
iii. Whether the impugned judgment and decree suffers from an apparent, illegality and perversity because of ignoring the material piece of evidence has been direct impact on decision of the case?
iv. Whether the impugned judgment and decree can be allowed to be sustained especially when the same are result of consideration of irrelevant fact and non-consideration of relevant fact?
v. Whether the Ld. Courts below have committed serious irregularities and illegalities, in dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff?
vi. Whether the findings recorded by the Ld. Courts below are perverse in nature?
vii. Whet
