JUDGMENT

Mr. Arun Monga, J. (Oral)

Having suffered adverse concurrent findings by the two Courts below, plaintiff/appellant herein is in second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2018, as upheld by learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 05.03.2020, vide which suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into his peaceful possession over the land in dispute, was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, facts as noticed by Courts below are that plaintiff-appellant's father Jarnail Singh was the original owner in possession of the property in question. He died on 17.03.2016. Plaintiff and his brother and sisters inherited said property. Baldev Singh brother of the plaintiff also died later. After death of Baldev Singh, defendant- Babbu contracted second marriage. Now plaintiff and his brother Gurmeet Singh are owners in possession of the suit property. Plaintiff also constructed one bathroom and toilet and installed motor in the suit property and defendants have no right, title or interest in the same. Defendant No.1 is claiming suit property on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and threatened to interfere in their peaceful possession. Hence, the suit.

3. Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability; concealment of true facts; locus standi; misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties; cause of action.

3.1. On merits, it was pleaded that Jarnail Singh was owner of suit property and he died on 17.03.2016. He was earlier married to Harbhajan Kaur. After death of Harbhajan Kaur, he performed marriage with defendant No.1 (Gurjit Kaur) and out of said wedlock two children, namely, Manpreet Kaur and Anshdeep Singh were born. Correct name of defendant No.2 is Parveen Kaur. She is the widow of Baldev Singh. Other averments contained in plaint were denied and prayer was made for dismissal of suit.

4. Replication was filed.

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

"(1). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP

(2) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD

(3) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties? OPD

(4) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

(5) Whether site plan attached with the plaint is wrong ? OPD

(6) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands ? OPD

(7) Relief."

6. Parties to 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, issue No.1 was decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. Issues No.2 to 6 were taken up together and decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants. Consequently, suit of plaintiff was dismissed with costs vide trial Court's judgment and decree dated 25.09.2018.

8. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff went in appeal which was also dismissed by learned First Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 05.03.2020, resulting in Regular Second Appeal by plaintiff before this Court.

9. I have heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the judgments of both the Courts below.

10. In its judgment, learned trial Court, inter alia, observed/held as below:

"xxx

PW1 Kanwaljit Kaur sister of plaintiff was cross-examined and she deposed that defendant no.2 is widow of her brother Baldev Singh but now defendant no.2 has remarried. It is pertinent to mention here that plaintiff failed to prove any document to the effect that defendan