AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alka Sarin, J
The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant challenging the concurrent findings returned by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.03.2016 and the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2019 passed by the First Appellate Court.
The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering in his peaceful possession over land measuring 2 bighas as detailed in the plaint. It was the case set up by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 that his possession over the land was peaceful and without interruption or intervention for the last over 100 years. It was further averred that the defendant-appellant had started interfering in his possession and had tried to raise construction over the land in dispute forcibly.
Notice of the suit was issued. The defendants contested the suit by filing a joint written statement. It was averred that the mother of the defendants, namely, Smt. Parvati Devi wife of Som Nath was in actual physical possession of the plot situated within the abadi deh/lal dora of Village Rampura Katabgarh, Tehsil and District Karnal and that she was in peaceful and continuous possession. Replication was not filed.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree for permanent injunction as prayed ? OPP
Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD
Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD
Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands and have suppressed the true and material facts from the Court ? OPD
Relief.
The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.03.2016 decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Court by the defendant-appellant which appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.09.2019. Hence, the present regular second appeal.
The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant is that the suit has been decreed on the basis of a demarcation report which was not prepared in accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders.
Heard.
In the present case both the Courts have concurrently found that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had been able to prove his possession over the suit property. The argument of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the demarcation report was not as per the High Court Rules and Orders deserves to be rejected inasmuch as neither any objections were filed by the defendant-appellant to the demarcation report nor the said point was raised or argued before the First Appellate Court.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. No question of law, much less, substantial question of law arises in the present case. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.