Fakir Singh Vs Munshi Singh Deceased Th Lrs

Pr e sent regular second appeal has b een filed by the appellant/plai n tiff assailing the c o rrectness of concurrent findin g s of learned Courts below w h ile dismissing the s uit for permanent injunction. 2. Br i ef facts of the present case are that plaintiff alleges himself t o be the owner in p o ssession of property No.728, a s detailed in the head note of the plaint, purchas e d by Ram Singh, who is fathe r of plaintiff. It is alleged that a fter the death of R a m Singh, the suit property de v olved upon the plaintiff but since plaintiff along w ith his family used to reside in Gurgaon, he has asked his r eal uncle Munshi S ingh i.e defendant No.1, to l ook after the suit property. Now, TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

RSA-1470-2019 (O&M) - 2-

¶19

defendants No. 1 & 2, have started claiming their ownership over the suit prop e rty. They have no c o ncern with the ownership and p ossession of the suit property. 3. In a joint statement filed by defen d ants No.1 to 3, it is alleged that the plaintiff has n o concern and right over the s u it property. In fact, father of the plaintiff-Ram S i ngh and defendant No.1, are r e al brothers. Being Karta of fa m ily, sale certificate was issued in the name of pl a intiff’s father. Defendant No.1, is residing in the s uit property for the last many y ears. Defendant No.2 is residin g in Dhani, Kirs Ro a d and he has alienated his sha r e in favour of defendant No.3 v ide agreement to s e ll dated 18.08.2008. The defen d ant No.3 is in possession over the suit property. D e fendant No.3 by filing a count e r-claim took up the stand that he is the prospective vendee of the suit property and had spent 2-3 lakhs and had ra i sed construction o v er the suit property and plai n tiff has no concern with the s uit property. On th e other hand, the plaintiff by fi l ing reply to the counter-claim has denied the clai m of defendant No.3.

¶20

Le a rned trial Court while dismi s sing the suit of the plaintiff h ad observed in pa r a No.11 of the judgment that p laintiff has failed to prove tha t he was the owner i n possession of suit property b y adducing any cogent evidenc e in his favour. The r efore, he is not entitled for the r e lief of injunction. 5. O n the issue regarding maintai n ability of the counter claim of defendant No.3, learned trial Court has held t hat in the absence of any co g ent evidence counter claimant/defendant No.3, he is not entitled to the relie f of injunction agai n st the plaintiff.

¶21

Fe e ling aggrieved by the above-s a id order of the learned trial Court, an appeal was p referred filed by plaintiff and o t her Civil Appeal (cross-objecti o ns)

¶22

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

RSA-1470-2019 (O&M) - 3-

¶24

by defendant N o.3. Learned Appellate Court h a s affirmed the findings of lear n ed trial Court and dismissed both the appeals, on e filed by plaintiff-Fakir Singh a nd the other Civil a ppeal (cross-objections) filed b y defendant No.3. 7. Le a rned counsel for the appellant/ p laintiff has argued that he does not dispute the find i ngs of learned Courts below re g arding the possession over the s uit property and a r elief of permanent injunction h aving being denied to the plain t iff. However, both the learned Courts below have erred in its findings with regar d to the title of the s u it property without there being any issue of ownership. He fur t her argued that the judgment and decree passed b y both the learned Courts belo w be modified so fa r as these relate to the findin g s returned on the title of the s uit property. He fu r ther submitted that in a suit f o r permanent injunction, the titl e is not to be seen. L earned counsel for respondent s No.1 and 3 on the other hand has argued that bot h the learned Courts below ha v e rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for pe r manent injunction and has righ t ly held that the plaintiff is not the owner of the pr o perty in dispute and the judgm e nts of the learned Courts belo w do not require any i nterference.

¶25

Findings

¶26

Le a rned counsel for the appell a nt/plaintiff, at the outset, fairly conceded that h e does not dispute the concur r ent findings of the learned Co u rts below insofar as they relate to possession of t h e suit property and the conseq u ent dismissal of th e suit for permanent injunction based on possession. However , he submits that th e learned Courts below ought n o t to have recorded findings on the ownership of the parties over the disputed prop e rty, as the present lis was a si m ple

¶27

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

RSA-1470-2019 (O&M) - 4-

¶29

suit for perman e nt injunction in which title wa s neither in issue nor required t o be adjudicated.

¶30

Le a rned counsel further stated th a t the appellant/plaintiff would be satisfied if the i m pugned judgment and decree i s modified to the limited extent t hat the findings of the learned Courts below rega r ding the title be treated as nonest , with the clarifi c ation that in a suit for permane n t injunction, ownership is not t o be determined unl e ss the same is directly in issue. 10. Th i s Court finds merit in the su b mission as made by the lear n ed counsel for th e appellant/plaintiff. In Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594 , the Hon’ble Supreme Cou r t held that in a suit for injunc t ion based on posse s sion, the question of title does not arise for determination un l ess specifically ple a ded and made an issue. The C ourt is required only to ascer t ain possession and t he right of the plaintiff to prote c t such possession. 11. In the present case, there was n o specific issue framed regar d ing ownership, and the relief sought was confine d to protection of possession. T he concurrent find i ngs of the learned Courts belo w on possession are based on pr o per appreciation of evidence and calls for no interf e rence by this Court, particularl y as the appellant h as also not challenged them on merits. However, the findings recorded on the ownership/title of the property, i n absence of an issue to that ef f ect, were beyond t h e scope of the suit and are, th e refore, liable to be ignored fo r all purposes.

¶31

MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT AND DECREE

¶32

In view of the above discussio n and settled law, the impug n ed judgment and d e cree of the learned Courts belo w are modified to the extent that:

¶33

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

RSA-1470-2019 (O&M) - 5-

¶35

i) The findings relating to pos s ession of the suit property and the consequential injunction r estraining the defendants f r om dispossessing the plaintiff except in due course of law, are upheld.

¶36

ii) the findings recorded on the title/ownership of the suit prop e rty are set aside, being beyond the scope of the present suit, a nd shall have no bearing on th e rights of the parties in any fu t ure proceedings regarding owne r ship.

¶37

CONCLUSION

¶38

Ac c ordingly, the appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. T he decree, as modified, shall reflect that the question of title has not been adjudic a ted and remains op e n for determination in appropri a te proceedings.

¶39

14 Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

¶40

August 13, 202 5 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Wheth e r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶41

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Fakir Singh v. Munshi Singh Deceased Th Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fakir Singh v. Munshi Singh Deceased Th Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases