Dismissed

Rajpal v. Mukesh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Sept 2014CR/477/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a revision petition under Article 227, dismissed the appeal against the dismissal of a temporary injunction application. The court upheld the lower courts view that the petitioner is the alleged possessor has not established possession as the true owner holds the vacant plot. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed as there was no merit found in the challenges to the impugned orders regarding the temporary injunction application.

Rajpal Vs Mukesh and Anr. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CR No.477 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision: September 04, 2014

103

Rajpal

...Petitioner

Versus

Mukesh and another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.N.S.Shekawat, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶13

Petitioner has filed this revision petition against respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 26.09.2013 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat and the judgment dated 06.12.2013 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Sonepat, whereby the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed.

¶14

It is mainly stated in the petition that plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit against the present respondents/defendants for permanent injunction, inter-alia, pleading that the petitioner is in settled possession of a plot No.576-A marked by letters ABCD. The plaintiff/petitioner is in settled possession of the said plot for the last 40 years and this plot is situated just adjacent to the residential house of the petitioner in the western side. Defendant No.1 never remained VINEET GULATIin possession of any portion of the said plot and had no right to 2014.09.17 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶15

CR No.477 of 2014

¶16

-2-

¶17

dispossess the petitioner forcibly from the suit property. The petitioner is using the plot for all domestic purposes and has also planted trees in the same. It is further stated that the petitioner has also constructed a toilet, bathroom, pacca fodder godown and also fixed a door between his house and the plot in dispute for ingress and egress.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

¶19

Learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat vide order dated 26.09.2013 dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC by holding that plaintiff is not claiming ownership of the plot. On the other hand, defendant has claimed that he is owner of the plot on the basis of registered sale deed, which was in favour of his mother Basanti Devi. The persual of the plaint shows that the plaintiff is not claiming ownership of the disputed plot. He is pleading that he is in settled possession for the last 40 years as he has constructed a toilet, bathroom, pacca fodder ground.

¶20

It is settled law that the possession of the vacant plot always remains with the owner. The plaintiff, in no way, can be held in possession of this plot as per law. Even if, the plaintiff has raised pacca fodder ground or raised some temporary construction, even then, the possession will remain with the owner. The defendant is claiming ownership as registered sale deed is in the name of his mother Basanti Devi. Therefore, plaintiff cannot ask for the injunction

¶21

VINEET GULATI 2014.09.17 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶22

CR No.477 of 2014

¶23

-3-

¶24

against the true owner nor the plaintiff can be held in possession of the plot in dispute. Therefore, the plaintiff has no prima facie case nor balance of convenience lies in his favour and if temporary injunction is not granted, plaintiff will not suffer any irreparable loss.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rame Gowda (D) by Lrs. vs. Mr.Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. and Anr., 2004(1) R.C.C. (Civil) 519 . I have gone through this cited judgment and the same having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case as in the present case in hand, the plaintiff is not in possession of the disputed plot. On the similar point, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment passed by this Court in Tarsem Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 2005(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 645 , in which it is held that person in settled possession is entitled to protect his possession by way of injunction from the Court. As already discussed, plaintiff is not in the possession of the property in dispute, therefore, above-cited judgment also will not apply in the present case.

¶26

In view of the above discussion, I find that impugned order dated 26.09.2013 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat and the judgment dated 06.12.2013 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Sonepat are correct and as per law and the same are upheld.

¶27

Therefore, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is dismissed.

¶28

(INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE

¶29

September 04, 2014 VINEET GULATIVgulati 2014.09.17 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Rajpal v. Mukesh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajpal v. Mukesh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ravinder Kaur Vs Ajaib Singh & Anr.

Jaibir Vs Sheela Devi

Subhash Vs Nar Singh & Ors.

Ritu Verma and Anr. Vs Ramesh Kumar and Ors.

Bhagat Singh Vs Anurag Properties & Ors.