In a second appeal, the Chandigarh High Court dismissed the appellant's suit for permanent injunction concerning a disputed shop. The court upheld lower court findings that the appellant failed to prove title via a will or possession, and held no substantial question of law was involved.
The appeal was dismissed with no relief granted to the appellant.
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.
Manoj Kumar #1# 2013.11.11 10:24I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.1354 of 2009 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1354 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.09.2013
Shri Krishan
....Appellant
Versus
Balwan
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent.
JASWANT SINGH, J
Plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 12.1.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rohtak and the findings affirmed in appeal vide judgment and decree dated 17.1.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak.
Plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction with the averments that he is owner in possession of a shop in dispute situated in Village Kiloi Dopana on the basis of sale deed dated 27.7.1996 and the defendant is interfering in his peaceful possession over the shop in question.
On the other hand, defendant-respondent controverted the assertions of the plaintiff-appellant and submitted that initially one Nihal Chand was the owner of the shop in dispute and after his death,
#2#
RSA No.1354 of 2009 (O&M)
the same was inherited by Badlu Ram. Thereafter, Badlu Ram died and his four sons, namely, Chandgi Ram, Ram Gopal, Hari Chand and Jagdish inherited the shop in question in equal shares and Chandgi Ram being one of the co-owner was in possession of the suit property and he gave the same to defendant for a consideration of Rs.18500/and executed a writing in lieu thereof and thus, the defendant-appellant is in lawful possession of the shop in question and doing his business and as such, there is no question of threatening or interfering alleged by the plaintiff-appellant.
Learned trial Court while deciding issues Nos.1 & 2 jointly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the shop in question at any point of time and thus, there is no question of interference by the defendants-respondents in his possession.
So far as the question of ownership is concerned, the learned trial Court in para 12 of its judgment also came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to show his title relating to the shop in question and thus, dismissed the suit. Learned first Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court on both the issues and also came to the conclusion that Chandgi Ram, one of the co-owners of the shop in dispute had mortgaged the same to the defendants-respondents in the year 1986.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper book minutely with his able assistance.
#3#
RSA No.1354 of 2009 (O&M)
As per the own case of the plaintiff-appellant, Badlu had executed a will in favour of his one son-Jagdish from whom, the plaintiff has purchased the shop in question on 27.7.1996 but he failed to prove the execution of the will. Neither any attesting witness nor the original will was brought on record for the reasons best known to him and an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has also been dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court along with the main appeal, which is clear from para 11 of its judgment.
When the plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove that Jagdish son of Badlu was having any title to alienate the shop in question, then both the courts below have rightly concurrently held that the plaintiffappellant is not the owner of the same.
So far as, the factum of possession is concerned, both the courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that there is no evidence on record to prove that the plaintiff-appellant ever came into possession over the shop in question after his alleged purchase on 27.7.1996 and thus, there is no occasion for his dispossession at the hands of the defendants-respondents.
No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal for adjudication under Section 100 CPC.
Dismissed.
September 18, 2013 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff-appellant succeeded in proving ownership and possession of the disputed shop.
Whether the lower courts rightly dismissed the suit for permanent injunction due to lack of title and possession.
Whether any substantial question of law exists under Section 100 CPC for adjudication in this second appeal.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Krishan
Balwan
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
