JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral)

1. Plaintiff is in second appeal.

2. These two instant appeals will dispose off two cross-appeals directed against the same judgment.

3. For convenience, parties are hereinafter referred to by their original positions as in the suit i.e. appellant as plaintiff and respondents as defendants.

4. RSA-1047-2014 is at the behest of the plaintiff and RSA-5927-2015 is at the behest of the defendants.

5. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction, seeking decree of restraint against the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the industrial plots bearing Nos.16, 17, 24 & 25 situated in Industrial Development Colony near Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. It was claimed that the plots in question, were allotted in favour of the plaintifffirm and the firm is in possession as owners thereof.

6. Suit was resisted by the defendants for denying the ownership of the plaintiff.

7. It was claimed that the property in fact never vested in the partnership firm. The defendants are allottee under the Industries Department, State of Punjab and are thus real owner thereof.

8. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed:-

"1) Whether the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and Shri Charanjit Kapoor is one of its registered partners? OPP.

2) Whether the plots No. 16, 17, 24 and 25 were allotted by the Industries Department to the plaintiff? OPP

3) Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the lots in question as alleged? OPP.

4) Whether the plots in question stands resumed and re-sold to the defendant and that defendant is in possession thereof? OPD.

5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.

6) Relief. "

9. Findings on Issue Nos.2 & 3 were returned against the plaintiff by the Court of first instance. It was held that the plaintiff was not the owner or allottee as claimed. While returning finding on Issue No.4, Court relied upon testimony of DW-10 to hold that though defendants have been allotted plots after resumption but it is only the symbolic possession that has been handed over to them. Thus, learned Trial Court though found that the plaintiff is in physical possession but held his possession to be illegal not sustainable. Suit was ordered to be dismissed. The aforesaid findings stand affirmed by the learned Appellate Court in appeal.

10. Plaintiff has filed appeal, impugning the judgment and decree.

11. Defendants are in appeal, impugning the findings on Issue No.4 with respect to possession.

12. Mr. Bhan, Senior Counsel, while assailing the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below, asserts that the Courts below, misdirected themselves in ignoring the fact that the suit was simplicitor for grant of decree of permanent injunction. The only determining factor being 'physical possession', once the plaintiff has been found to be in possession concurrently by both the Courts, the suit ought to have been decreed in favour of the plaintiff. He thus, submits that even though plaintiff has no title but having being found in possession is entitled to decree of permanent injunction.

13. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendants submits that even though the Courts below found that the plaintiff was in possession, but it has been held that the possession of the plaintiff after resumption was that of a trespasser and thus, plaintiff was not entitled for injunction. Defendant being lawful allottee, suit against true owner was not maintainable.

14. From the conjoint reading of documents (Exhibits D-8 & D-11), it is evident that the defendants were handed over possession after allotment and in view of the overwhelming documentary evidence on record, Court ought not have given precedence to the oral testimony.

15. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

16. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant is not in a position to dispute that the resumption proceedings qua