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,