Trespassers cannot obtain an injunction against true owners without proving identifiable rights in the property.

JUDGMENT : 

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The plaintiff is before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal challenging the reversal of the trial Court’s decree. The trial Court had gran- ted a decree of permanent injunction on 23.08.1996 in favour of the plaintiff, but the First Appellate Court allowed the defendants’ appeal on 04.12.1998, reversed the trial Court’s findings and dismissed the suit.

2. The trial Court record available on the DMS has been perused. For the sake of clarity, the parties will be referred to by the status in which they stood before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff’s case is that he has been the owner in possession of the suit property shown as letter “ABCD” on the site plan, situated within the Abadi Deh of village Hassanpur, since the time of his father. It is alleged that the plaintiff’s father constructed a saar about fifty years ago and that the plaintiff subsequently raised a Nohra and constructed two Bitoras, one Bonga and one Khor on the property for residential use. The municipal committee purportedly asserted ownership and filed a complaint under Sections 181/209 of the Municipal Act, 1973 before the Sub-Divisional Ma- gistrate, Palwal, but that complaint was dismissed for want of sanction. The plaintiff contends that the defendants have no right in the suit property, and that they are attempting to dispossess him and demolish his construc- tions. Accordingly, he sought a decree of permanent injunction.

4. Defendants Nos.1–3 contested the suit, denying the plaintiff’s title and possession. They contend that they are the owners of plot Khasra No.502/2 measuring 2 Kanal 4 Marla, by virtue of Mutation No.3109 sanc- tioned on 12.04.1990, and that the plaintiff has no connection with or pos- session of that plot. Their case traces title to old Khasra No.1193 min, ori- ginally allotted to Dayal Chand and subsequently sold in part to Thakur Dass and Bodhraj (½ share) and in part to Mool Chand (father of defendant No.1), Mohan Lal and Rijhu Ram (remaining ½). Thereafter, Thakur Dass and Bodhraj allegedly sold their ½ share to Mohan Lal and defendants Nos.2 and 3, and thus defendant Nos.1–3 claim to have become the owners of the entire plot now recorded as Khasra No.502/2. They further allege that, due to a clerical mistake by the consolidation authorities, their possession was not recorded initially; upon their application the matter was remanded to the Director of Consolidation and a spot inspection on 25.01.1990 af- firmed their possession, following which Mutation No.3109 was sanctioned in their favour.

5. After framing issues and recording evidence, the trial Court de- creed the suit. The trial Court found that although the plaintiff was not the owner, he was in possession of the suit property. It further found that de- fendant Nos.1–3 were the owners but could not dispossess the plaintiff ex- cept by due process of law. Accordingly, a decree of permanent injunction was passed restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff ex- cept in accordance with law.

6. On appeal the First Appellate Court reversed the trial Court’s findings, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession of the suit property and failed to establish its identity with Khasra No.502/2 owned by the defendants. The Appellate Court further observed that, even if the plaintiff were in possession, an injunction in favour of a trespasser against the true owner could not be granted. For these reasons, the Appellate Court allowed the defendants’ appeal and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit.

7. Challenging the reversal, learned counsel for the appella