JUDGMENT

Arun Monga, J. (Oral)

For convenience, parties herein are described as per recitals before learned Trial Court.

2. Having suffered concurrent adverse findings by the two Courts below, the plaintiff is in second appeal before this Court assailing learned trial Court judgment and decree dated 24.11.2015, as upheld by learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 06.12.2016.

3. Briefly stated, facts as noticed by Courts below are that plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction to the effect that defendants may be permanently restrained from, in any manner, interfering and dispossessing the plaintiff from the house constructed over the land measuring 0 Kanal 5 Marlas, bearing Khata No.684/631, Khatauni No.812/1, Khasra No.202, as entered in Jamabandi for the year 2007-2008, Hadbast No.20, situated in the area of Village Behram, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar. As per plaintiff, earlier Prema son of Tamba, real uncle of plaintiff, was owner in possession of the suit property. Said Prema was residing with plaintiff till his death in the house in question.

3.1. Plaintiff further averred that he is in actual and physical possession of the house in dispute for the last more than 20 years. Further defendant No.1 is hot headed and lawless person, who was Technical and Social Welfare Minister, Punjab and defendant No.2-SHO was also dancing to the tune of defendant No.1 and both defendants were threatening to alienate or transfer the house in question to anybody else.

4. Upon notice, defendants appeared and defendant No.1 filed written statement taking preliminary objections of maintainability and estoppel. However, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn qua defendant No.2-SHO.

4.1. Defendant No.1 admitted that said Prema was real uncle of plaintiff. However, it was pleaded that he (Prema) was also the real uncle of defendant No.1 and had given the suit property to defendant No.1 in lieu of services being rendered by him as Chowkidar and defendant No.1 and his family members assisted Prema to construct a house and defendant No.1 along with his family members started living with him. Even the electricity connection had already been installed in the name of defendant No.1. A couple of preliminary objections were also raised.

5. Based on the rival pleadings, following issues were framed:

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

3. Whether the plaintiff is barred by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD.

4. Relief.,

6. The parties to the suit adduced their oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their pleadings and to discharge their respective onus as per the issues, ibid.

7. On appraisal of evidence vis-a-vis pleadings, issues No.1 and 2 were decided against plaintiff and issue No.3 was decided in favour of defendant No.1. Consequently, the suit of plaintiff-Appellant was dismissed.

8. Aggrieved, plaintiff-Appellant preferred first appeal which was dismissed with costs by learned First Appellate Court, resulting in instant Regular Second Appeal by plaintiff before this Court.

9. Learned counsel for Appellant strenuously argues that there is no bar for filing a suit for permanent injunction without seeking a prayer for declaration. To buttress his contentions, he relies on upon Full Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in A. Subramanian and another v. R. Pannerselvam, 2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 902.

10. I have heard learned counsel and perused the judgments of both the Courts below. To my mind, judgments under challenge have been rendered after due and correct appreciation of evidence adduced by the respective parties. Relevant part of lower Court judgment, with which, inter alia, I am in agreement, is as below:-

"xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

Furthermore, for seeking relief of permanent injunction, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to prove his possession over suit land. He though alleged that he is in e