Possession established through continuous use despite challenges from opposing parties upholds rights against forcible dispossession.

Key Points: - The appellant-plaintiff sought permanent injunction claiming possession since grandfather; issues include maintainability, clean hands, estoppel, proper party, and whether possession was proven (!) (!) - Plaintiff contends Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari entries show Ram Rakha as cultivator, supporting possession; defendants challenge due to deceased predecessor and forest department possession (!) (!) (!) - Courts below dismissed the suit citing revenue records in favor of defendants and lack of proven dispossession; trial and appellate findings questioned, including misreading pleadings and failure to prove dispossession (!) (!) (!) (!) - Court notes lack of proof of lawful dispossession by Forest Department and that revenue entries alone do not prove dispossession; previous suit dismissal does not bar the present suit for permanent injunction (!) (!) - Supreme Court/High Court jurisprudence cited regarding second appeals and scope under Punjab Courts Act; ultimately, the appeal resulted in setting aside lower judgments and recognizing possession (!) (!)

What is the entitlement to permanent injunction based on longstanding possession despite challenges from opposing parties?

What grounds determine the maintainability and standing of the suit for permanent injunction in this context?

What is the court's decision on whether the appellant-plaintiff possessed the suit property and was dispossessed, affecting the injunction?

JUDGMENT :

Virinder Aggarwal, J.

Vide this Regular Second Appeal, the judgement and decree dated 30.11.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hoshiarpur as well as judgement and decree dated 07.09.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur in suit filed by appellant-plaintiff for grant of permanent injunction have been assailed.

2. The appellant-plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction claiming that before independence Ram Rakha, grand-father of the appellant, was in possession of the land as tenant on payment of fruit and timber of the trees to a Muslim owner and after independence on creation of Pakistan the ownership of the suit land vested in the government, but Ram Rakha remained in possession in that very capacity. Ram Rakha expired on 04.02.1964. After his death, Ram Chand, father of the appellant-plaintiff, came into possession who died on 26.10.1967. Thereafter, the appellant-plaintiff continued in possession on the same terms and conditions. The appellant-plaintiff has constructed a house in Khasra No. 40 measuring 02 kanals 16 marlas. The appellant-plaintiff is part time living in Phagwara and mostly in the suit property. The defendants are out to dispossess the appellant-plaintiff from the suit land. The plaintiff moved an application before Naib Tehsildar, Bhunga for correcting Khasra Girdawari entries in his name, but to no avail. A false criminal case was got registered against the plaintiff for commission of offence punishable under Section 447 of the Indian Panel Code and Section 30(c) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The plaintiff was acquitted vide judgement dated 22.05.2003. Earlier also the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants, but due to involvement of attorney of the plaintiff in criminal case, the same could not be pursued and was dismissed on 27.09.1999. Hence, the suit.

3. On notice, defendants filed joint written statement raising preliminary objection of maintainability, the plaintiff not approaching the Court with clean hands, estoppel and attorney not being authorized to file the present suit and the suit being barred in view of dismissal of previous suit and on merits the defendants denied that Ram Rakha ever came into possession or after his death Ram Chand or the plaintiff ever came into possession of the suit property. It is further denied that the plaintiff is tethering cattle in the suit property or that Mehar Singh has been appointed as lawful attorney of the plaintiff and specifically alleged that Forest Department is in possession of the suit property on behalf of provincial government. Possession of the suit property was taken by the Forest Department as per law by order of Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur vide No. 113 of 11.01.1999. Rapat No. 335 of 18.03.1999 was entered in the Daily Diary by Halqa Patwari. It was denied that the plaintiff has constructed house in the suit property.

4. The plaintiff filed replication denying the averments of the written statement and reiterating the contents of the plaint and further alleged that Rapat Roznamcha and Mutation are fabricated documents prepared in connivance with the Revenue Department.

5. From the pleadings, the following issues were framed:-

'I. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

II. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

III. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands? OPD

IV. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD

V. Whether the suit has not been filed through a proper person? OPD

VI. Relief.'

6. In order to prove the issues, the plaintiff examined Nirmal