Second appeal against reversal of a permanent injunction decree in a suit regarding a disputed bare. The court held that without establishing ownership or substantive possession, the suit was rightly dismissed, and the appellants are not entitled to the property.
The appeal was dismissed; the suit was not entitled to a permanent injunction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA 3276 of 2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
RSA 3276 of 2009 Date of decision: 5.1.2012
Dr.Achhru Ram and another
petitioner
vs
Joginder Singh and others
respondent
Present:Mr. JS Cooner, Advocate. Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate.
M.M.S.BEDI, J.
This is plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment of reversal. The suit of the plaintiff- appellants for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant- respondents from interfering in possession of bara shown in Ex.P-1 measuring 20X20 was decreed by the lower court on appreciation of evidence on the basis of the possession of the plaintiffappellants, observing that there is no proof of ownership in favour of either plaintiffs or the defendants. The decree for permanent injunction, passed in favour of the plaintiff-appellants, was challenged by the defendants. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal of the defendants and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants relying upon the judgment in Bhan Singh
& Ors vs. Tej Singh & ors 1996 PLJ 519 laying down that the mere putting of heap of rubbish, placing dung cake, tethering cattle or installation of pegs , are not sufficient enough to establish possession over the bara or to seek injunction.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
RSA 3276 of 2009
2
appellants have been able to establish their possession over the bara . Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the appellants had made an attempt to forcibly take possession from the defendantrespondents prior to the institution of the suit, regarding which a criminal case was registered.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgments passed by the courts below. It appears that the plaintiffs are claiming injunction regarding a bara measuring 20X20, shown in site plan Ex.P1, whereas the defendant- respondents are claiming possession over the bara measuring 108 feet X 120 feet, shown in Ex.D1 produced by the defendant- respondents. Both the parties have not been able to establish their ownership over the bara. It is also apparent from the record that there is no permanent construction over the property claimed by both the parties. This case has tobe decided on the basis of the comparative possessory rights of the plaintiffs and defendants. Since both the parties have not been able to establish their ownership or possession warranting grant of injunction, the lower appellate court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal warranting interference in this regular second appeal.
Dismissed. Dismissal of the suit will not entitle the plaintiffs or the defendants to usurp the property in dispute as they have not been able to establish their ownership and substantive possession.
January 5 , 2012 TSM
(M.M.S.BEDI ) JUDGE
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhan Singh & Ors vs. Tej Singh & orsApplied¶12
Bhan Singh & Ors vs. Tej Singh & ors 1996 PLJ 519
Dr. Achhru Ram and another
Joginder Singh and others
M.M.S.Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
