Ownership must be clearly established with supporting evidence, failing which injunction may not be granted.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgments and decrees of the ld. Courts below whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the ld. trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.08.2016. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was partly allowed by the ld. 1^st Appellate Court to the extent that “...defendants are hereinafter restrained from interfering in the egress and ingress of general public including that of plaintiff from the rasta which vest in Municipal Committee as depicted in site plan annexed with sale deeds Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 and also mentioned in the aforesaid sale deed to be Municipal Committee gali 34 feet on the northern side of the suit property. The remaining suit of plaintiff has been rightly dismissed by the ld. lower court...”.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as the “plaintiff”; and respondents as the “defendants”.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference in the solitary rasta which opens towards the plot shown in the red colour with letters ABCD in the site plan, plaintiff being the owner in possession of the same.

4. The facts as pleaded in the plaint are that the plaintiff along with his brother is in possession of plot since the time of his forefathers. The plot has been shown with red colour with letters ABCD in the site plan bounded as North- Rasta of plaintiff, South- House of Deen Dayal, East- House of plaintiff, West- Public rasta 12 feet situated in Mohalla Nemri Niche, Mohindergarh. On the aforesaid plot plaintiff’s father was running an electrical workshop. After the death of his father plaintiff is running the workshop. The door of the house of plaintiff opens in the plaintiff's plot which is the only rasta for ingress and egress. A civil suit for permanent injunction bearing no.1154/604 of 1994/2000 titled as “Laxman Kumar Vs. Om Parkash and others” instituted by plaintiff’s father was dismissed on the ground that neither plaintiff nor defendants could prove their ownership over the property in dispute. The appeal and revision filed against suit no.1154/604 of 1994/2000 were dismissed. The defendants have no concern with the ownership and possession of plaintiff over the plot in dispute. The defendants in collusion with each other and also with Rameshwar Dayal, Om Parkash son of Mange Lal who were defendants in civil suit no.1154/604 executed sale deed bearing no.1854 dated 09.08.2004 in favour of defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 further executed sale deed no.1504 dated 21.08.2008 in favour of defendant no.2. These sale deeds were executed during pendency of civil suit no. 1154/604. None of the aforesaid defendants had right to execute the sale deed. Now defendants are bent upon to take forcible possession of the plot in dispute from the plaintiff. As such, plaintiff prayed that defendants be restrained from interfering in his property shown by letters ABCD with red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint. Defendants be also restrained from interfering in the ingress and egress from the rasta as shown in site plan. The aforesaid rasta is only rasta for ingress and egress of the plaintiff. The defendants be also restrained from raising any construction over the plot in dispute.

5. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement in which it was pleaded that plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the plot in dispute. Plaintiff has no shop over the plot in dispute. No door of plaintiff's house opens in the plot in dispute. Defendants have pleaded that Rameshwar and Om Parkash sons of Mange Lal who were owner of suit property vide sale deed no.1854 dated 09.08.2004 have sold it to defendant no.1. Thereafter defendant no.1 vide registered sale deed dated 21.08.2008 sold it to defendant no.2. The defe