RSA No. 2119 of 2010 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

RSA No. 2119 of 2011 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 26.5.2011.

Hari Ram and others

.......Appellants

Vs.

Chet Ram and others

......Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:

Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for

Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate

for the appellants.

.....

SABINA, J.

Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction.

The case of the plaintiff in brief was that the plaintiff

and proforma defendants were owners in possession of the plot

forming part of Ahata No. 8 Ghar No. 15 situated in residential

area of village Khairani. Plaintiff and proforma defendants had

constructed their houses and were residing therein. The

contesting defendant had no concern with the property belonging

to the plaintiff but was threatening to interfere in the peaceful

possession of the plaintiff. Hence, suit for permanent injunction

was filed by the plaintiff.

Defendant No.1, in his written statement, averred that

plaintiff was neither owner nor in possession of the suit property.

The plot in dispute did not form part of Ahata No. 8 Ghar No. 15.

RSA No. 2119 of 2010 (O&M)

-2-

Defendant was owner of the constructed portion of the property

in dispute.

Defendants No. 2 to 4 were proceeded exparte.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were

framed by the trial Court:-

“1.

Whether the disputed property is a part of Ahata

No. 8, Ghar No. 15? OPP

2.

Whether the plaintiff and proforma-defendants

are owner in possession of the disputed property

as alleged? OPP

3.

Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the

present suit? OPD

4.

Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the

present suit? OPD

5.

Whether present suit is bad for non-joinder of

necessary parties? OPD

6.

Whether the suit is barred by law of

limitation? OPD

7.

Whether plaintiff has estopped by his own and

conduct to file the present suit? OPD

8.

Whether the defendant has become owner of

disputed property by way of adverse

possession? OPD

9.

Whether defendant is entitled to special

costs? OPD

10.

Relief.”

Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgment and decree

RSA No. 2119 of 2010 (O&M)

-3-

dated 4.2.2008 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and

restrained defendant No.1 from interfering in the ownership and

possession qua the house of the plaintiff as well as adjoining

vacant land marked by letters A1, B1, C1, D1 shown in the site

plan Ex. D-2. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, legal

representatives of contesting defendant preferred an appeal and

the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 2 and 3 preferred cross

objections. The Additional District Judge, vide judgment and

decree dated 24.12.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the legal

representatives of the contesting defendant and allowed the cross

objections filed by the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 2

and 3. Hence, the present appeal by the legal representatives of

defendant No.1.

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I

am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal.

Plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction

that the contesting defendant No.1 be restrained from interfering

in his peaceful possession. In order to prove his case, plaintiff

proved on record Khasra Paimaish and mutations. As per the

said documents, plaintiff had inherited the suit property. The

local commissioner gave a report that the suit property forms part

of Ahata No. 8 and Ghar No. 15. Both the courts below, after

appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given

a finding of fact that the property in dispute forms part and

parcel of Ahata No. 8 and Ghar No. 15. On the basis of the

documentary evidence on record both the courts below have given

a finding of fact that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the

suit property and had inherited the same from Gidhu