Dismissed

Mani Ram v. Shanti Saroop etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Dec 2009RSA/2447/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed an appeal against the dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction. The lower courts held the plaintiff failed to prove independent title or possession over the disputed open courtyard, noting respondents admitted ownership over the room and small space but claimed the larger open area. The appeal was rejected as lacking merit.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Mani Ram Vs Shanti Saroop etc. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

-1-

¶2

RSA No. 2447 of 2009

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

RSA No. 2447 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 8.12.2009

¶5

Mani Ram

¶6

Shanti Saroop and another

¶7

..... Appellant vs ..... Respondents

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

¶9

Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the appellant .

¶10

Mr. R. P. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶11

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶12

The plaintiff is in appeal before this court against the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below whereby suit filed by him for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into his peaceful possession over Baithak , court yard and open sehan, was dismissed.

¶13

Briefly the facts are that the appellant-plaintiff claimed that he was owner in possession over a room, Baithak , court yard and sehan as mentioned in the plaint. He was using the open court yard in front of the Baithak for the purpose of placing fodder, fuel, wood and other miscellaneous purpose since the time of his forefathers and the houses of the defendants-respondents are situated in the vicinity. They have no right, title or interest in the property but with a view to grab the open sehan, they were regularly interfering in the peaceful possession of the appellant, which necessitated the filing of the present suit. Both the courts below did not find merit in the contention raised by the appellant-plaintiff and dismissed the suit.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submitted that the respondents in the present case had admitted that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the room, Baithak and the small open space in front thereof still both the courts below dismissed the suit filed by him. He submitted that the respondents have not been able to prove their ownership and possession over the property and in the absence thereof the case set up by the appellant-plaintiff deserved to be decreed.

¶15

On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants-respondents submitted that possession of the appellant-plaintiff on a room, Baithak and small open space in front thereof is not in dispute. The subject matter of dispute is the open court yard thereafter which is in the ownership of the respondents. The

¶16

RSA No. 2447 of 2009

¶17

-2-

¶18

appellant-plaintiff is not at all concerned with the open space in dispute. The effort of the appellant is to encroach upon that portion of open space which is in fact owned by the respondents-defendants. The admission made by the defendants in the suit is only qua the room, Baithak and small space in front thereof and not the entire open space which is substantial. In the present case the appellant had not been able to make out his case as no independent evidence was led by him to prove that the appellant was in possession of the property in dispute.

¶19

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The findings recorded by the courts below are plain and simple findings of facts recorded on correct appreciation of evidence produced on record which do not give rise to any question of law much less a substantial question of law.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any material evidence produced by him on record which was either not considered or misread by the learned court below to enable him to substantiate the plea regarding perversity in the findings recorded by the courts below. It is not in dispute that to prove his possession, the appellant did not produce any independent witness in his evidence. He did not even examine the draftsman who had prepared the site plan produced on record by him. As against this, the defendants had produced substantial evidence in the form of independent witnesses on record to submit that the property in dispute was in fact in ownership and possession of its true owner.

¶21

It is also admitted by the appellant-plaintiff that the suit land was owned by three brothers, namely Harnam, Udho Ram and Har Gobind. The plaintiff is grand-son of Harnam and is in possession of his share in the suit land. As the son of Har Gobind, namely, Jiva Nand had four daughters, his share came to his daughters. Udho Ram had a son Dyal Chand, who is defendant no. 1's father, is also in possession of his share. The daughters of Jiva Nand had sold their shares to Bimla Devi wife of defendant no. 1 and that sale-deeds were proved on record by the defendants which though were in the knowledge of the plaintiff but were never challenged by him. Even the attesting witness was produced as a witness by the respondents in the evidence led by them.

¶22

Considering the aforementioned facts, in my opinion, the appeal lacks merits and the same deserves to be dismissed.

¶23

Ordered accordingly.

¶24

( Rajesh Bindal) Judge

¶25

8.12.2009 vs.

Mani Ram v. Shanti Saroop etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani Ram v. Shanti Saroop etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Taj Barman etc. Vs Sanjay Kumar etc.

Chuni Lal Vs Khemu

Santokh & Anr. Vs Union of India

Darbara Singh etc. Vs Dalip Kaur etc.

Charanjit Singh Vs Rakha Ram and Others

Baljit Kaur Vs Pargat Singh