Nirmal and Others vs Jarnail Singh

Jaswant Singh, J.—Lrs of plaintiff Vidya are in present second appeal, aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Moga whereby their suit for permanent injunction has been partly decreed qua 4-1/2 marlas out of 6 marals of suit land, reversing the findings given by learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Moga who had dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 07.02.2008. Brief facts for proper adjudication of the case are that plaintiff Vidya along with her husband Sant Ram and other family members alleged themselves to be living in house in dispute. It was alleged that one Paramjit Singh Walia son of Gulzari Lal advanced threats to take possession of the disputed property illegally from them qua which husband of the plaintiff Vidya namely Sant Ram filed a civil suit No. 180 dated 21.5.1987 which was decided on 19.7.1989 against Paramjit Singh and others, which was decreed by observing that the possession was of the husband of the plaintiff Vidya over the house in dispute. The husband of the plaintiff died in the year 1996 and, therefore, it was alleged that now the plaintiff Vidya along with her other family members are residing in the house as tenant of United Church of Northern India(Punjab Syndicate) and her possession over the suit property is peaceful, lawful and continous one. It was further averred that defendant has no right or concern over the property, still he is threatening to take forcible possession of the same and, therefore, the present suit.

Upon notice, defendant inter alia contended that the property in dispute was the ownership of United Church of Northern India Trust Association. The said assocation sold the said property to Paramjit Walia and the defendant Jarnail Singh alleges himself to be a bonafide purchaser of the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 8.11.2000 from Paramjit Walia. It was alleged that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property and, therefore, prayer was made for dismissal of the suit.

Replication was filed wherein the entire contents of the plaint were reiterated and denied those of the written statement filed by the defendant.

From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both the sides led their evidence in support of their respective claims and after appreciating their evidence, learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 07.02.2008 and the findings thereof have been affirmed in appeal by learned lower Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 11.01.2010.

I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and have gone through the record of the case carefully with his able assistance.

Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned lower appellate Court has committed grave error by holding that the plaintiff/appellant is not entitled for injunction qua the entire suit property. It was argued that as the plaintiffs are in possession of the entire suit property, therefore, the injunction ought to have been granted qua the same.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant this Court is of the considered view that the respondent was able to prove that Paramjit Walia had purchased the property from Church for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 1.2.1985 and the possession was delivered to Paramjit Walia in pursuance to the said sale deed. It is apparent from the record that Paramjit Walia had sold 1-1/2 marla of land in favour of respondent Jarnail Singh vide sale deed dated 8.11.2000 for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. The learned lower Appellate Court has observed in its para 11 of the judgment that a perusal of the jamabandi Ex. P-2 shows that Nirmal Kumari daughter of Vidya has been recorded to be owner of 49/7416 share out of total area of 20 kanals and 12 marlas. Further sale deed Ex. PW-3/B depicts that Nirmal Kumari purchased 4 marlas and 4-1/2 Sarsahi i.e. 3/4 share of 6 marlas out of Khasra No. 559 from Vijay Kumar Sood. Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the appellant has failed to satisfy this court as to how the plaintiffs/appellants are claiming themselves to be in possession of 6 marlas of land, although the revenue record is contrary to the said stand taken by the plaintiffs/appellants.

No other point was urged before me during the course of arguments. In view of the above, finding no question of law much less substantial question of law u/s 100 CPC arising for determination, the present second appeal is hereby dismissed.