A second appeal wherein the appellant claimed permanent injunction. The High Court dismissed the appeal relying on precedent that mere placing of dung cakes, tethering cattle, or rubbish does not establish possession required for injunction, holding the suit dismissed orders correct.
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.986 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.986 of 2011 Date of decision:01.03.2012
Jaswant Singh
......Appellant
Vs
Dial Singh & others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr.J.S.Gill, Advocate, for the appellant.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA J.(ORAL)
2
RSA No.986 of 2011
the suit was not maintainable, the plaintiff not coming to the Court with clean hands and that the defendants had also fixed a barbed wire around the plot in question and that the plot in dispute is owned by their ancestors and the plaintiff did not attach the correct site plan. All the other allegations were denied being incorrect except that there is a neem tree on the northern corner and heap of brick bats lying in the suit property and the location of the manger.
Court Cases 16 , and accordingly, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.08.2008 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Kharar.
3
RSA No.986 of 2011
plaint, the case of the plaintiff was of keeping his cattles and cow dung cakes and this Court in Bhan Singh Vs. Tej Singh 1996 (3) PLR 153 has held that mere placing cow dung cakes and tethering cattle does not amount to possession and admittedly the land is not in the ownership of the plaintiff, para No.5 of the judgment reads as under:
“5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case and I am of the considered view that this appeal is devoid of any merit, as the plaintiffs have failed to prove their established possession of the Bara in dispute on the date of the institution of the suit, which was instituted in the month of March 1973. The short point involved in this appeal which requires determination of the High court, is whether the plaintiff or his legal representatives have been able to prove their possession over the Bara in question or not. The onus to prove issue No.1 was upon the plaintiff. No doubt, if the plaintiff failed to prove his ownership over the Bara in question still he was entitled to get a decree for injunction on the basis of the established possession. The evidence, which has been led by the plaintiff was so unsatisfactory that it has to be concluded that by mere user in the shape of the throwing rubbish does not establish the possession of the plaintiff, who has come to the Court to claim the injunction. Mere acts of user, such as throwing rubbish, placing dung cakes, tethering cattle, installation of pegs may be weak links to say that a particular litigant is using the property but such user has to be secluded separately from the acts of possession, for which overt act is necessary for such litigant to establish that he had been exercising his possession with the intention to retain it by excluding others over the Bara in question. The plaintiff in this case has miserably failed to establish his ownership by leading any documentary or oral satisfactory evidence. Even otherwise the oral evidence regarding possession is too weak, which may be relied upon in order to establish the possession. P.W. 5 Bishna, when appeared in the witness-
RSA No.986 of 2011
4
box, categorically stated that the property in question was situated in the Abadi and that it is a part of the Shamilat Deh. Also it is admitted by Dassa Lambardar (P.W.2) that the Bara is lying vacant. The case set up by the plaintiff in the trial Court was that he had been putting rubbish/refuse of the house in the Bara and, therefore, it should be inferred that the Bara in question was in his established possession. In my opinion, while dealing with the type of property such as Bara in dispute, the act of putting rubbish or refuse of the house is not enough.”
01.03.2012 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether mere acts of user like placing dung cakes and tethering cattle amount to established possession for injunction.
Whether the plaintiff proved established possession of the suit property.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dhoom Singh Vs. Baisakhi RamApplied¶20
Dhoom Singh Vs. Baisakhi Ram 1997 (Supplimentary) Civil Court Cases 16
Bhan Singh Vs. Tej SinghRelied on¶25
Bhan Singh Vs. Tej Singh 1996 (3) PLR 153
Jaswant Singh
Dial Singh & others
G.S. Sandhawalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
