In this appeal, the appellant challenged the dismissal of his suit for permanent injunction regarding suit property. The High Court held the suit to be misconceived and not maintainable because the appellant's own case admitted he had allowed the respondent-brothers permissive possession of the property.
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.47 of 2014 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.47 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision:21.04.2014
Kulwinder Suman
....Appellant
Versus
Teja Singh and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present:- Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for the appellant.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL)
Appellant filed the instant suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondents from interfering into his peaceful possession over the suit property claiming to be owner in possession of the same alleging that he being brother of defendant No.1 had orally suggested defendants No.1 and 2 to look after and take care of the property in dispute. However, now they want to take advantage of his absence and bent upon to take possession of the suit property by way of interfering into the peaceful possession over the suit property. Thus, necessity has arisen to file the instant suit.
The defendants in their written statement submitted that
they were owners in possession of the suit property and have constructed their residential houses and the plaintiff had no concern
Kadian Savita 2014.04.26 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.47 of 2014 (O&M)
2
with the suit property. It is their further case that the documents on the basis of which appellant is basing his title do not relate to the suit property and thus, the suit was liable to be dismissed.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit and restrained the defendant/respondents from interfering into peaceful possession over the suit property and alienating the same in any manner.
However, in an appeal filed on behalf of defendants No.1 and 2 against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the lower Appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 17.9.2013 set aside the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit.
Aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, plaintiff has filed the instant appeal submitting that following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal:-
1. Whether the learned First Appellate Court committed grave illegality in reversing the well reasoned findings of the learned trial Court on the ground of nonregistration of title deeds in favour of the plaintiff qua the suit land?
2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to injunction especially when he led documentary evidence to prove his ownership and possession which was not even
Kadian Savita 2014.04.26 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.47 of 2014 (O&M)
3
rebutted by the defendants?
3. Whether the plaintiff can be held to be in possession by holding that defendant is not in possession of the suit land?
4. Whether possession of a vacant plot goes with the ownership, which in the present case lies with the plaintiff?
At this stage, it may be relevant to notice the averments made in para No.3 of the plaint by the appellant which read thus:-
“3. That it is mentioned here that defendant No.1 is the real brother of plaintiff and defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1. Defendant No.3 is the third party and he intends to purchase the property in dispute. The house of defendants No.1 and 3 is situated near by the property in dispute. Being brother the plaintiff orally suggested to the defendants No.1 and 2 to manage, look after and to care the property in dispute. Now defendants No.1 and 2 to take the advantage of the absence of the plaintiff, are bent upon to alienate the suit property illegally, forcibly to defendant No.3 and other persons by way of sale, gift, mortgage etc. which they have got no right to do so. The defendants are also bent upon to take the possession of
Kadian Savita 2014.04.26 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.47 of 2014 (O&M)
4
the property in dispute by way of interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the property in dispute illegally and forcibly which they have got no right to do so. On yesterday the defendants tried to do their above noted illegal act but they could not succeeds in their illegal act due to timely intervention of the attorney of the plaintiff, while they given the threat that they will do so as and when they will got the suitable opportunity. The threat of the defendants is still continue. In case they succeed in their illegal act then the plaintiff will suffer an irreparable loss and special injury which cannot be compensated in any way.”
Thus, it is appellant's own case that defendants No1 and 2 have been asked by him to look after and manage the suit property in his absence. Thus, respondents No.1 and 2 are in permissive possession of the suit property. Admittedly, appellant has allowed the defendant-respondents a permissive use/possession of the suit property. It is appellant's own case that he has allowed the defendant/respondent No.1, who is none else but his brother, to look after the property in dispute in his absence as he is residing abroad.
In view of the aforesaid averment made in the suit itself, the suit for permanent injunction as prayed, is mis-conceived and not maintainable.
Kadian Savita 2014.04.26 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.47 of 2014 (O&M)
5
Thus, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal.
Dismissed.
Needless to say, if appellant being owner has any remedy
available to him, he may seek that remedy in accordance with law.
April 21, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE
Kadian Savita 2014.04.26 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned First Appellate Court committed grave illegality in reversing the trial Court's findings based on non-registration of title deeds?
Whether the appellant was entitled to injunction given he led documentary evidence proving ownership and possession which was not rebutted?
Whether possession of a vacant plot goes with ownership lying with the plaintiff?
Kulwinder Suman
Teja Singh and others
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
