RSA No.3851 of 2013(O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.3851 of 2013(O&M)

Date of decision: 27.09.2013

Sarbajit Singh Sodhi

......Appellant(s)

Versus

Karnal Singh & ors.

......Respondent(s)

CORAM:-

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

* * *

Present:

Mr. Umesh Narang, Advocate for the appellant.

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral)

This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgments and

decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction has

been dismissed.

According to the appellant, he purchased suit land from

defendant-respondent No.1 vide sale deed dated 20.6.2005 and there was

an electric motor connection No. BAP-305 of 7.5 BHP installed in the said

land. At the time of purchase of suit land, the electric motor connection

was also purchased. Respondent No.1 had executed an affidavit dated

30.6.2005 giving his no objection for transfer of the electric motor

connection along with security in the name of the plaintiff-appellant. The

appellant had already completed formalities for transfer of electric motor

connection in his name and had deposited the requisite charges with the

Punjab State Electricity Board. However, respondent No.1 was colluding

with other defendant-respondents and creating hindrance in the peaceful

use and enjoyment of the said electric motor connection and was also

Saini Pushpinder

2013.10.04 15:48

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh

RSA No.3851 of 2013(O&M)

2

threatening to disconnect the same illegally and thus, necessity arose to

file the instant suit restraining the respondents from creating any type of

hindrance into the peaceful use and enjoyment of electric motor connection

running in the suit property and further restraining respondents No.2 to 4

from disconnecting the said electric motor connection.

Respondent No.1 in his written statement admitted that he

had sold the suit land to the appellant. However, it was submitted that the

electric motor connection was not sold through the aforesaid sale deed. It

was the further defence of respondent No.1 that affidavit dated 30.6.2005

was not executed by him. Therefore, there was no question of executing

affidavit regarding electric motor connection given on 30.6.2005.

Defendant No.1 needed the said electric motor connection to be installed

in his land. Thus, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

Respondents No.2 to 4 took the plea that the appellant had

represented before them that he had purchased the electric motor

connection from defendant-respondent No.1 and had produced the affidavit

of respondent No.1 having no objection and the electric motor connection

was in the name of defendant No.1. However, on the objection of

respondent No.1 that he had not sold the electric motor connection, they

had decided not to transfer the electric motor connection. The plaintiff-

appellant was served a notice dated 2.8.2008 asking for his response to

the objection of respondent No.1. Thus, suit be dismissed.

From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were

framed:

“1.

Whether the plaintiff is owner of the

electric motor in question?OPP

2.

Whether the defendant no.1 has

Saini Pushpinder

2013.10.04 15:48

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh

RSA No.3851 of 2013(O&M)

3

executed an affidavit dated 30.6.2005

in favour of the plaintiff, if so, its

effect?OPP

3.

Whether the suit is not maintainable

in the present form? OPD

4.

Relief.”

The trial Court after considering the evidence on record

dismissed the suit.

Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial

Court, the appellant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court which

was also dismissed observing as under:

“9.

The dispute between the parties is as

to whether electric motor connection was also

sold alongwith sale deed dated 20.6.2005

executed by d