Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3538
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Amol Rattan Singh, J.
Ramesh Kumar - Appellants
Versus
Deepti Arora And Others - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 8953 of 2017
Decided On : 16-10-2018
Sumeet Mahajan, Adv., Amit Kohar, Adv., Vikas Bahl, Adv., Japneet Kaur, Adv.
The importance of strict evidence to determine possession and ownership in the context of conflicting claims made by the parties at different points in time.
Headnote:
possession - family dispute - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a permanent injunction against the respondents for trespassing on a property claimed to be owned and possessed by the petitioners. The property was a subject of dispute within the family.
Finding of the Court:
The court found conflicting claims of possession and ownership by both parties. The court directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession until the decision of the suit, emphasizing the need for both parties to strictly prove their possession.
Issues: Dispute over possession and ownership of the property, conflicting stands taken by the parties in earlier litigation, and the need for evidence to determine actual possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of strict evidence to determine possession and ownership in the context of conflicting claims made by the parties at different points in time.
Final Decision: The court modified the orders of the lower courts, directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession until the decision of the suit, and emphasized the need for both parties to strictly prove their possession.
JUDGMENT
Amol Rattan Singh, J. - By this petition, the petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in the suit out of which the impugned order arises, challenge the said order dated 18.11.2017 (copy annexed as Annexure P-13), passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, allowing the appeal of the respondentsdefendants against an order passed by the learned trial Court (Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana), dated 21.09.2017 (Annexure P-12), by which order the trial Court had allowed the application of the petitioners-plaintiffs, seeking an interim injunction during the pendency of the suit.
In the suit of the petitioners, they were seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants against trespassing on the suit property, which is stated to be a godown, which the petitioners' claim is in their ownership and of which they are in possession.
It is necessary to notice at the outset that the first petitioner is the HUF of Ramesh Kumar, with the second petitioner-plaintiff being the wife of Ramesh Kumar, whereas the respondents-defendants are the wife and children of the late brother of the aforesaid Ramesh Kumar. Thus, it is a dispute within the family, qua the suit property.
2. In the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners had contended that they were jointly in possession of the said property bearing Municipal no.B-29-V-6-01705, comprised in Khewat Khatauni no.442/615, 447/620, 448/621, Khasra no.191/3, 189/3, 188, 189/1, 190/1, 190/3, as per the jamabandi for the year 1993-94, situated at Baba Mukand Singh Nagar, Daba Road, Ludhiana, they having purchased the said property vide a registered sale deed bearing Vasika no.17471 dated 13.11.1997, with the revenue records also reflecting their title.
It was further contended that the petitioners were carrying on their business and using the property as a godown and were even paying property tax to the Municipal Corporation in respect of the said property, wherein also an electric connection stood installed in their names, with them paying the electricity bills.
Some photographs are also stated to have been referred to by the petitioners to try and prove their possession over the property.
3. It was next contended by the petitioners that, between them and the defendants, disputes were already pending with even FIR no.205 having been registered against defendant no.1 on 25.11.2015 at Police Station Division no.6, Industrial Area, Ludhiana, due to which (as contended), the said defendant had started interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the suit property with her (defendant no.1) also having attempted to criminally trespass into the property 'with help from her henchmen'. However, the aforesaid Karta of the HUF (Ramesh Kumar ) and his son alongwith some labourers present at the site, resisted the attempt, with Ramesh Kumar allegedly having been beaten up due to which a complaint was filed with the police, but, allegedly, the police at the behest of the defendants, instead registered FIR no.271 dated 12.08.2017 at Police Station Focal Point against Ramesh Kumar and his son. Hence, as per the petitioners-plaintiffs, 'in the garb of the said FIR', the said defendants were again threatening to take illegal possession of the suit property and to obstruct the business of the plaintiffs, also seeking to illegally remove the machinery that stood installed by the plaintiffs.
On the aforesaid contentions, an interim injunction prohibiting the defendants from interfering in the possession of the petitioners over the suit property, during the pendency of the suit, was prayed for.
4. In their reply to the application for interim injunction, the defendants (respondents herein), other than taking the usually preliminary objections of non-maintainability, misuse of the process of court etc., on merits completely denied the contents of the application.
5. The learned Civil Judge, after noti
