Surinder Pal and Others vs Joginder Singh and Others

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—Appellant-plaintiffs filed suit for injunction restraining defendants to interfere in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs on plot marked A-B-C-D-E-F on the site plan, annexed to the plaint. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs were owners in possession of the site in question but the lower appellate Court reversed findings and decree of the trial Court and held that though the sale deed Ex.P/1 was duly proved but the title of the vendor from whom the plaintiff purchased the site in question was not proved. It was held that the possession of the plaintiffs on the site in question was also not proved and the presumption raised by the trial Court that possession of a vacant site followed the title was not applicable to the present case in view of categorical evidence showing that the possession was with defendants.

Reference was particularly made to evidence of Pritam Singh. PW-2 from whom the plaintiffs had purchased the site, who admitted that though he had given the possession to the plaintiffs but now the possession was with the defendants. The report of Local Commissioner. Ex.P/7-A also supported the case of defendants.

Counsel for the appellants submitted that the finding of the lower appellate Court was erroneous and relied upon the decision of this Court in Bhan Singh and Others Vs. Tej Singh and Others, , wherein it was held that mere tethering of cattle on the site in dispute would not establish the exclusive possession of the defendants.

Counsel for the respondents relied on the statement of PW-2, Pritam Singh, who admitted that the possession was with the defendants and in the allotment letter, Ex.P/3, relied upon by the appellants, no boundaries were mentioned. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the appellants has no application to the facts of the present case wherein plaintiff''s possession was fully established.

I have perused the statement of Pritam Singh, PW-2 and find that in examination- in-chief as well as in cross-examination he has categorically stated that the possession was with the defendants and that no boundaries are mentioned in allotment letter, Ex.P/3, and PW-2 was specifically asked whether allotment letter, Ex.P/3 was relating to the site in question. I thus, find that the finding of the lower appellate Court is based on evidence and cannot be said to be perverse. There is, thus, no scope of interference in the second appeal and the same is dismissed.