The plaintiff must prove their own case, and lack of evidence to support the claim can lead to dismissal of the suit.

Darshan Singh, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, has been dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties is being mentioned as in the original suit.

3. Appellant-plaintiff has filed the suit for injunction restraining the defendants from illegally, unlawfully unauthorizedly and forcibly dispossessing him from the suit property bearing house no.10197 also known as L-10, H. No.68/1, measuring 97 Sq. yds, situated at Gali No. 14, Kot Harnam Dass, Abadi, Tirath Pura, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar except in due course of law.

4. As per the case of the appellant-plaintiff, he is residing in properties no.10197 and 10198 for the last 40 years, which are his ancestral properties. His father Albel Singh purchased the property bearing no.10198 and his uncle (Fufa) Rajinder Singh purchased the property in question bearing no.10197 in the year 1958. He migrated to United Kingdom in between 1960-1965 and handed over the property to the father of plaintiff. The plaintiff was inducted as a tenant by defendant no.1 at a monthly rent of Rs. 80 in the year 1986 when he got married. Since then, he is in possession of the suit property as a tenant and is regularly paying the rent. Defendants no.1 and 2 are the owners of the property in question as they had inherited the same after the demise of Sh.Rajinder Singh. Defendant no.3 is the brother-in-law (Sala) of defendant no.2. Defendant no.3 is instigating defendants no.1 and 2 to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property and he wants to grab the same. Hence the suit.

5. Defendants-respondents controverted the pleas raised in the plaint. They denied that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property as a tenant or the property was ever handed over by Rajinder Singh to the father of the plaintiff. They also denied that the plaintiff was inducted the suit premises as tenant in the year 1986 as alleged in the plaint. It was further pleaded that the suit property bearing no.10197 has a separate outgress and ingress and is noway linked with the property no.10198. It is further pleaded that the power of attorney has been executed in favour of defendant no.3 to look after the property. With these pleas, the defendants pleaded for dismissal of the suit.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for in the head note of plaint?OPP

2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties?OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands?OPD

4. Relief.

7. On appreciating the material on record and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 04.02.2013.

8. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree, appellant-plaintiff has preferred the appeal and the same was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 05.10.2015. Hence this Regular Second Appeal.

9. I have heard Mr. S.K. Mahajan, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant and have meticulously gone through the paper book.

10. Initiating the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Courts below had made out a new case that the plaintiff was only a caretaker. They had held plaintiff-appellant to be in possession of the suit property. Once, it is established that the plaintiff is in settled possession of the suit property, the defendants have no right to forcibly dispossessed him from the suit property bearing no.10197 and he wa