Failure to prove ownership and possession over the disputed property resulted in dismissal of the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral)

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 09.05.2023 passed by the Court of District Judge, Amritsar (hereinafter to be referred as "First Appellate Court"), whereby first appeal of the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2022 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baba Bakala Sahib (hereinafter to be referred as "trial Court"), partly decreeing the suit for permanent injunction, was dismissed.

2. Briefly stating, the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants themselves or through their agents and attorneys from interfering into his peaceful possession over the suit property comprised in Khasra No.202, Khewat No.430, Khatauni No.885, as per jamabandi for the year 2016-17, situated in Village Tangra, Tehsil Baba Bakala Sahib, District Amritsar marked as ABCD' and shown in Yellow' colour in the site plan and for restraining the defendants from creating hindrance in the construction work being carried out by the appellant-plaintiff in his owned property marked as CDEF' and shown in Green' colour in the site plan and for possession of the land marked as BGHI' shown in Red' colour in the site plan which is part of Khasra No.202 owned by the appellant-plaintiff which had been illegally encroached upon by the respondents-defendants. In the plaint, it was pleaded that the appellant-plaintiff was co-owner of the suit property bearing Khasra No.202 in possession of land shown as ABCD' in the site plan being part of said Khasra number and the respondents-defendants had no concern over the same. It was further pleaded that when the appellant-plaintiff was raising construction in his own land, the respondents-defendants stopped hindrances in the construction work and on measurement of the property on the spot, it came to the notice of the plaintiff that respondents-defendants even had illegally encroached upon the part of the property of the appellant-plaintiff shown as red in the site plan. The appellant-plaintiff further pleaded that the respondents-defendants being influential persons were threatening the appellant-plaintiff that they would not allow him to raise construction in the property as shown in yellow colour in the site plan and also that they would dispossess the appellant-plaintiff from the property shown in green colour in the site plan; appellant-plaintiff also requested the respondent-defendants to handover the vacant physical possession of the property as shown in red colour in the site plan after removal of illegal construction, but they refused to do so. Hence, the suit.

3. Upon notice, respondents-defendants appeared and filed a detailed written statement and denied all the material averments made in the plaint; thus, prayed for dismissal of the suit. In the written statement, it was pleaded that the appellant-plaintiff had wrongly claimed that the entire property shown in green, red and yellow colour in the site plan filed by him was part of Khasra No.202. It was then pleaded that property shown in red colour by the plaintiff was part of Khasra No.40//27/1 and the same shown in yellow was vacant plot being part of Khasra No.201 which was used by the defendants for ingress and outgress to their houses and it was exclusively owned by respondents-defendants and they had constructed their residential houses as shown in green colour in the site plan attached by the defendants. It was further pleaded that the property shown in yellow by the plaintiff and in red colour by the defendants in their respective site plans was part o