Back
2021 Supreme(P&H) 655
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sudhir Mittal, J.
Mohammad Ashraf - Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Razak - Respondent
CM-379-CII-2021 and CR No.1980 of 2020
Decided On : 18-01-2021
Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. J.S. Mehndiratta, Advocate, for the Respondent
Possession ordinarily follows title, and without evidence of possession, the plaintiff's case for injunction was not strong enough to warrant relief.
Headnote:
Possession - Tenancy Dispute - The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for injunction based on lack of proof of possession, as the defendant had presented documentary evidence of ownership. The court found that possession ordinarily follows title, and without evidence of possession, the plaintiff's case was not strong enough to warrant the injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant, claiming to be a tenant on a piece of land enclosed by a boundary wall. The defendant denied the tenancy and filed a counter claim seeking possession of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for injunction, as the trial court found in favor of the defendant based on documentary evidence of ownership. The plaintiff's argument of prima facie case in his favor was rejected due to lack of proof of possession.
Issues: Dispute over tenancy and possession of the property, application for injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, rejection of plaintiff's application by the trial court and dismissal of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: Possession ordinarily follows title, and without evidence of possession, the plaintiff's case for injunction was not strong enough to warrant relief.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petitions, upholding the decisions of the lower courts in favor of the defendant.
JUDGMENT
Sudhir Mittal, J. (Oral). - CM-379-CII-2021 in CR-1978-2020
2. This application has been filed for placing on record Annexure R-l to R-5 and for exemption from filing certified copies thereof. Notice of motion.
3. Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate accepts notice and has no objection in case the same is allowed.
4. Application is allowed and exemption sought for is granted and Annexures R-l to R-5 are taken on record.
CR Nos.1978 & 1980 of 2020
5. This common order and judgment shall dispose of aforementioned two revision petitions as both arise out of orders dated 10.02.2020 (Annexure P-6) and 22.01.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed in connected cases.
6. The petitioner is the plaintiff. He had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing him from the suit property. It is his case that he is the tenant on an open piece of land enclosed by a boundary wall. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent, tenancy has been denied. Counter claim has been filed by the defendant wherein he has also set up a claim of possession of the property in dispute and restraint has been sought against the plaintiff. Along with the suit as well as counter claim, applications under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC have been filed for grant of ad interim injunction. The application of the plaintiff-petitioner has been dismissed whereas the application of defendant-respondent has been allowed by the trial Court. Appeal of the plaintiff-petitioner has been dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the written statement dated 08.01.2019 annexed as Annexure P-2, the defendant-respondent has specifically pleaded that the sand, crusher etc. are lying in the property in dispute. This shows that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property as the defendant does not deal in the business of selling sand and crusher etc. Thus, prima facie case exists in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner and the Courts below have erred in rejecting his application.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the reasons given by the courts below.
9. The trial Court has rejected the application of the plaintiff-petitioner on the ground that his case is based on oral evidence only whereas the case of the defendant-respondent is based on documentary evidence i.e. sale deed dated 07.07.2009. In the absence of any proof of possession on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner, the trial Court was justified in finding in favour of the defendant-respondent. Possession ordinarily follows title and for success, the plaintiff-petitioner should have produced some evidence to show that he is in possession. However, that being not the case, I do not find any error in the impugned orders.
10. The present revision petitions are dismissed.
