Possession of land, even if unauthorized, cannot be disturbed without legal procedure; ownership claimed must be substantiated with evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

The defendant is in second appeal before this Court against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against the appellant, has been decreed.

2. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that both the Ld. Courts below overlooked the fact that there is no document apart from the site plan on record to prove the ownership of the respondent/plaintiff over the suit property. It is further submitted that both the Ld. Courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that the plaintiff/respondent has encroached upon the public property.

3. It is further submitted that both the Ld. Courts below have relied upon the statement of PW-2 Paramjit Singh where it was suggested to the plaintiff’s witness that the plaintiff/respondent was illegally in possession of the suit property, whereas, both the Ld. Courts below failed to appreciate this fact that the plaintiff/respondent was neither the lessee, tenant, owner and co-sharer in possession over the alleged suit property of its previous owner nor the present owner.

4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file including the Lower Court Record in great detail.

6. The brief facts as narrated in the plaint are that previously forefathers of the plaintiff/respondent were in possession of the land in dispute. Thereafter, plaintiff/respondent came in possession over the property mentioned in the letters ABCD. Plaintiff/respondent has filled earth in the property in dispute and sown trees, two Tallis, Khazoor, Amrood and other trees were standing in the suit property. Plaintiff/respondent has also placed dung cakes and ballan and he was also tethering their cattles in the plot in dispute. Plaintiff/respondent has also made boundary wall at some portion at point -B and installed barbed wire in the Northern Side and therefore, appellant/defendant has no concern/connection with the plot in dispute and the plaintiff/defendant is now intending and threatening to dig the earth and to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/respondent over the suit property. Hence, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction restraining the appellant/defendant their servants and agents, from digging earth and from interfering into the peaceful possession of the respondent in a plot as mentioned in letters ABCD shown in the site plan by way of illegally, forcibly or in any other manner.

7. Upon notice, appellant/defendant appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability, want of locus-standi and cause of action, estopped by his own act and conduct, concealment of facts, clean hands, bad for misjoinder or non-joinder of necessary party. It has been further averred that appellant/defendant is owner and in possession of the suit property which is Gair Mumkin Tobha/pond and also averred that previously the suit property was in ownership and in possession of its previous owner and on coming of existence of Nagar Panchayat the said property got vested in the Nagar Panchayat. Since then, the appellant/defendant is the owner and in possession over the suit property. Even a resolution No.110 dated 03.07.2009 to clean the Tobha/pond was passed by the appellant. It has been further averred that plaintiff/respondent was neither the lessee, tenant, owner and co-sharer in possession over the alleged suit property of its previous owne