Jarnail Singh vs Jagtar Singh and others

Jaswant Singh, J.—Plaintiff/appellant is in second appeal against the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction was dismissed by the trial court and the appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the learned appellate court.

Facts necessary for the decision of the present second appeal are that plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants alleging therein that he was owner in possession of the suit land for the last five years as certified by Halqa Patwari and that respondents/defendants being influential persons were threatening to take forcible possession of the suit land, though they had no concern with the same.

Upon notice, defendants put in appearance and filed written statement denying the claim made in the plaint. It was instead alleged that plaintiff has not given correct demarcation of the suit land and vide demarcation report dated 1.3.2000 prepared by the concerned revenue official, defendant no. 1 was held to be in possession of the suit land. It was further averred in the written statement that previously defendant no. 1-Jagtar Singh had filed a suit against the plaintiff/appellant which was decreed in favour of Jagtar Singh and against the plaintiff Jarnail Singh and as such latter had no cause of action and the suit was liable to be dismissed.

On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed, both sides led evidence in support of their respective pleas. The learned trial court after hearing both sides and perusing the oral/documentary evidence available on record dismissed the suit of the plaintiff which findings were affirmed by the learned appellate court. Hence the present second appeal.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant that two judgments Ex.D2 and D4, relied upon by both the courts below while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff are not applicable to the facts of the present case and thus the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, in my opinion, no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

The learned trial court on the basis of oral/documentary evidence available before it, recorded a finding of fact that though the plaintiff/appellant claimed to be in possession of suit land but no khasra numbers were depicted in the head note of the plaint. It was further found by the trial court that PW2 Kundan Singh in his cross examination did not support the case of the plaintiff/appellant. On the other hand as per Ex.D7 the defendant was found to be in possession of the suit land. Thus, it was noticed by the trial court that plaintiff had failed to lead evidence which could prove that he was entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. On the basis of documentary evidence (Ex.D2 to D5) adduced by defendant it was found by the learned trial court that earlier defendant had filed a suit against the Gram Panchayat concerning the suit property, over which plaintiff claimed to be in possession. The appellate court while dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff has found that though the plaintiff/appellant has claimed that Halqa Patwari has certified his possession over the suit property, but no certificate issued by Halqa Patwari has been proved on record.

As regards the previous litigation over the suit property, which is subject matter of the present suit, it has been found by the appellate court that as per judgment Ex.D2 in one suit the parties were different and in the second suit, copy of which was produced as Ex.D4, no doubt the parties were the same but the suit land was not the same and as such the present suit was not barred u/s 11 CPC. Thus, it emerges that the sole ground for dismissing the suit of the plaintiff was his inability to prove his possession over the suit property and judgments Ex.D2 and D4 in previous suits were given not given weightage, which is sufficient to reject the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant.

For the reasons stated above, finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed.