RSA No.4362 of 2016 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

RSA No.4362 of 2016 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 09.05.2017

Chaman Lal

....Appellant

Versus

Surinder Kaur and others

....Respondents

BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

Present:-

Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate

for the appellant.

*****

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

Appellant-Chaman Lal has filed the present appeal to challenge

the judgments and decrees dated 07.03.2015 and 05.03.2016 passed by the

trial Court as well as by the lower Appellate Court, respectively.

Appellant-plaintiff-Chaman Lal filed a suit for permanent

injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful

possession of the plaintiff over the property, in dispute, marked as ABCD

shown in red colour in the site plan. The suit of the plaintiff-appellant was

dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 07.03.2015 passed by learned

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phillaur. Said judgment and

decree passed by the trial Court was challenged before the learned

Additional District Judge, Jalandhar by way of filing appeal, which was also

dismissed on 05.03.2016.

The plaintiff-appellant, after losing his battle before the two

Courts below, has approached this Court by way of filing Regular Second

Gurpreet Kaur

2017.05.19 12:14

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

high court

RSA No.4362 of 2016 (O&M)

2

Appeal by raising various grounds.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the Courts

below have misread the entire evidence available on record and in spite of

recording a positive finding that the plaintiff is co-owner in the suit

property, still the claim has been dismissed. Learned counsel also submits

that the claim of the plaintiff-appellant has been declined only on the

ground that alternative relief in the form of partition suit along with relief of

possession could have been availed. It is also the argument of learned

counsel for the appellant that the possession of the appellant has been

proved on record not only by oral evidence but on the basis of documentary

evidence but sill the finding has been recorded against the appellant,

whereas, it is a settled law that if any co-owner threatens to dispossess

another co-owner, who is in possession of the joint property, the Court can

always grant injunction against such forcible dispossession.

Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the

judgment of Delhi High Court in case Balwan Singh and others (Shri) vs

Shri Jaipal Singh and others 2007(7) AD (Delhi) 246 in support of his

contentions.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and

have also perused the judgments of the trial Court as well as of the lower

Appellate Court.

Facts relating to filing of suit, dismissal there of and thereafter,

filing of appeal and its dismissal are not disputed.

The trial Court has framed the following issues :-

“1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction

as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form?

Gurpreet Kaur

2017.05.19 12:14

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

high court

RSA No.4362 of 2016 (O&M)

3

OPD

3. Relief.”

The findings recorded by the trial Court are reproduced as

under :-

“8. After perusing the whole evidence and the

documents placed on the file, the plaintiff is alleging the

house in dispute with specific boundaries regarding

which he is seeking injunction. He has duly proved on

the file water bill receipts Ex.P3 to Ex.P6, PSEB bill

Ex.P7 to show his possession. Defendants have proved

agreement regarding partition of the suit property dated

26.06.2006 but the plaintiff has denied the above said

agreement ever effected between them. Kishori Lal has

been examined by the defendants to prove the above

said agreement dated 26.06.2006. As per that agreement

all