Pawan Kumar vs Rajinder Pal and Others

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Present regular second appeal has been preferred by Plaintiff to the suit. This Court had requisitioned the records on 23.12.2009. Today, with the aid of Counsel for the parties, I have perused the same.

Pawan Kumar, Appellant-Plaintiff, along with his wife Raj Rani had instituted a suit for permanent injunction praying that the Defendants be restrained from dispossessing the Plaintiffs and interfering in their peaceful possession in the suit property, which is a house, the detail and description of which has been given in the head-note of the plaint. It was stated that once the house was owned by some Mittal Family and there is a Samadh of Baba Moni Das Ji at the spot. Plaintiffs were inducted into the suit property by the said Mittal family about eight years prior to institution of the suit. The suit was instituted on 27.7.2008. It was further stated that the Plaintiffs along with their four children were residing in the suit property. Earlier Defendant No. 1 had made an attempt to forcibly enter into the suit property and a case FIR was lodged against him.

On issuance of the notice of motion, Defendant-Respondents caused appearance. They admitted that the property was owned by Mittal family but was gifted to Pandit Sadhu Ram who died and after his death Amar Dass inherited the property and from Amar Dass, Defendant No. 1 had succeeded to the property. It was further stated that about two years before filing the suit, Defendant No. 1 fell sick and asked Plaintiff No. 1 to perform religious duties in his absence. About ten months ago, Plaintiff had quarreled with the residents of the Agwar and thereby had breached the sanctity of the dera, therefore, he was asked to vacate the premises and Plaintiff being licencee of Defendant No. 2, cannot continue in the suit property.

After conclusion of the pleadings, the trial court had drawn the following issues:

Whether the Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property? OPP

Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

Relief.

Appellant himself appeared as PW1 and closed his evidence. Defendants examined Pala Singh as DW.1 He proved compromise Ex.D1; Paramjit Dass appeared as DW2 and Rajinder Pal Defendant No. 1 appeared as DW3. The Defendants have placed heavy reliance upon compromise Ex.D1. A perusal of compromise Ex.D1 reveals that the same is a Panchayati compromise. In this agreement, it has been stated that the original owners of the property Pala Singh Mittal and Subhash Mittal had granted two months time to the Plaintiffs to hand over the peaceful vacant possession failing which legal action shall be initiated. The trial court relied upon compromise Ex.D1 to hold that the Plaintiffs had agreed to hand over vacant possession to Defendant No. 2 within two months. Thus, it is apparent that as per the Defendants, the Plaintiffs are in possession and Defendants have failed to prove their ownership, therefore, the Plaintiffs cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law.

Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court, Defendants to the suit filed an appeal. The lower appellate court held that the electricity connection is in the name of Amar Dass and water connection is in the name of Paramjit Dass Defendant No. 2. Furthermore, it was held that the suit has not been filed against the true owners. The court even though affirmed the finding on issue No. 1, that the Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property, but had held that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief of permanent injunction.

A perusal of the pleadings and the evidence reveals that Paramjit Dass Defendant No. 2 to the suit has failed to prove his ownership. The gift deed on the basis of which ownership is sought to be proved, has not been brought on the record. Furthermore, in para 4 of the plaint, it was specifically stated that the FIR was registered against Defendant No. 1 at the instance of the Plaintiff. In the written statement, Defendant No. 1 has stated that the Appellant-Plaintiff had intentionally arrayed Defendant No. 1 as intruder and the case (FIR) was found false in the enquiry conducted by higher officials. Furthermore, trump card in this case is the panchayati compromise Ex.D1 in which it has been admitted that the Plaintiffs are in possession of the disputed land. Compromise Ex.D1 further states that in case within two months, Plaintiffs do not hand over vacant peaceful possession, they will be evicted by following due process of law. Thus, the substantial question of law, which arises for consideration of this Court is whether the lower appellate court has erred in the setting aside the well reasoned finding of trial court which is based on the appreciation of document Ex.D1 or not. In view of the discussion held above, answer of this Court is to be in affirmative. Indeed, the lower appellate court has acted against law and facts of the case in disturbing well reasponed findings returned by the trial. In view of this, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are set aside and that of the trial court are maintained.

Hence, the present appeal is allowed.