The Single Judge dismissed the second appeal for an injunction suit. The court held that the lower courts correctly found no exclusivity of possession due to absent revenue records and lack of valid power of attorney for the compromise.
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.1041 of 2016 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1041 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.12.11.2018
Malkiat Singh Bains
......Appellant
Vs.
Avtar Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for the appellant.
-.-
AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)
The appellant-plaintiff has not been successful in claiming injunction on the basis of possession. The sole basis of injunction had been that in a suit instituted by defendant No.1 bearing No.220 of 2002 titled as “Avtar Singh Vs. Malkiat Singh etc.”, there was a compromise dated 13.04.2003. The aforementioned compromise was effected on behalf of Kuldeep Singh, defendant No.2 being the attorney of Avtar Singh. As per the averments in the suit, the plaintiff filed the suit when there was threat perception of forcible interference and dispossession. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit on the premise that copy of the attorney had not seen light of the day, in essence, whether Kuldeep Singh had any power or authority to compromise on behalf of Avtar Singh, other cosharer.
Mr. Bansal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that it was incumbent upon the defendant to establish that plaintiff was not in exclusive possession as the relief sought in the suit was for simplictor injunction. The compromise
PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.11.14 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-2-
RSA No.1041 of 2016 (O&M)
bore signature of Kuldeep Singh being himself and on behalf of Avtar Singh, which reflected the possession.
I am afraid the aforementioned argument of Mr. Bansal is not sustainable, for, onus, in suit for injunction by a co-sharer claiming exclusive possession, heavily relies upon him. No revenue record has been placed on record. Assuming for argument’s sake though not admitted that there was compromise, that compromise has not been reflected in the revenue record nor copy of attorney has seen light of the day.
All these factors weighed in the mind of the Court below while rendering concurrent finding of fact. I do not find any illegality and perversity in the judgments and decrees rendered by the Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE November 12, 2018 Pankaj* Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.11.14 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the suit for simplicitor injunction due to lack of revenue records and absence of copy of attorney.
Whether a substantial question of law arises regarding the validity of the compromise deed without power of attorney.
Malkiat Singh Bains
Avtar Singh and others
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
