Second appeal against dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction. The court dismissed the appeal upholding findings that the appellant failed to prove possession and admitted mortgaging the property in 1963 without redeeming it.
The appeal was dismissed with no substantial question of law arising. The judgments and decrees of the courts below were affirmed.
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 No. 2109 of 2008
1
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
RSA No. 2109 of 2008
Date of decision: May 6, 2009
Sohan Singh son of Wasava Singh
..Appellant.
Versus
Raju and another ..Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Present: Mr. I.S.Brar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Vivek Goel, Advocate for the respondents.
Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.
This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the appellant of the land in dispute in any manner was dismissed.
The appellant filed the present suit alleging therein that he was the owner in possession of the suit property. The defendants who had no right or concern with the property are head strong persons and are threatening to dispossess the plaintiff.
Upon notice, the defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement taking various preliminary objections. On merits, the allegations made in the plaint were denied. It was further submitted that in the year 1963, the plaintiff mortgaged the land to the defendants vide three mortgage deeds and delivered the possession thereof. It was also alleged that the property in dispute had not been redeemed so far and the defendants were in possession. All other allegations were denied. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for.
Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions.
2
RSA No. 2109 of 2008
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on the file, the trial Court held that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was not proved and thus no case for injunction was made out.
Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree. While dismissing the appeal, the lower Appellate Court observed that ownership of the plaintiff was not disputed. However, there are three mortgage deeds, all dated 19.2.1963 which have been proved on record vide which the appellant Sohan Singh mortgaged with possession the suit property in favour of the mortgagees Ishar Singh, Parsin Kaur and Bikkar Singh (predecessor in interest of defendants) and there was nothing on record to show that the suit property was ever got redeemed by the appellant.
Still not satisfied, the plaintiff has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that possession of the plaintiff over the suit land is not proved and there was ample evidence on record to prove the fact that appellant himself mortgaged with possession his suit property in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the defendants and there was no evidence on record to show that the suit property was ever got redeemed by the appellant. The contention of the counsel for the appellant that jamabandi and girdawari Ex. P-1 and Ex.P2 have been ignored is also without any force. Admittedly, the land in dispute is abadi. Therefore, the revenue entries which are rebuttable are not of much importance. Moreover, from the evidence placed on record, the entries in Ex. P-1 and P-2 stood rebutted. The question whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land or not is essentially a question of fact.
Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to show any perversity in the findings of the courts below.
RSA No. 2109 of 2008 3
Thus I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises.
Dismissed.
May 6, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the evidence sufficiently proved that the appellants had possession of the suit property and that the mortgage with possession had been redeemed.
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding lack of possession and alleged mortgage were perverse or needed to be reconsidered.
Sohan Singh
Raju
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
