JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - Unsuccessful plaintiff Rajender Kumar Saini has filed the present RSA and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.9.2000 passed by Addl. District Judge, Hisar, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.4.1996 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, who dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for permanent injunction. 2. The case set up by the plaintiff in the trial Court was that he had been continuing as owner in possession of the disputed plot for the last 20 years and the same was used by him for the purpose of fodder stall, tethering cattle and parking tractor etc. About three years ago he installed one chaff cutting machine after obtaining licence from the Municipal Committee, Hisar. However, the officials and members of the Municipal Committee were bent upon to dispossess him forcibly from the disputed plot due to political reasons and about 3/4 days or prior to the filing of the suit the Secretary and other employee of the Committee tried to remove his barbed wire fencing but they could not succeed. 3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendant, who filed the written statement and denied the allegations. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was neither owner nor in possession of the plot in question. He never installed any chaff cutting machine over the disputed plot. Neither he tethered cattle not parked tractor etc. It was submitted by the defendant- Committee that in order to encroach upon the disputed plot the plaintiff fixed barbed fencing, but the same was removed by it. 4. The plaintiff filed joinder to the written statement in which he reiterated his averments by denying those of the written statement and from the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any injunction as prayed in the plaint ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands, if so its effect ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 6. Relief. 5. The parties led oral and documentary evidence and on the conclusion of proceedings the Civil Judge (Jr. OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands, if so its effect ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 6. Relief. 5. The parties led oral and documentary evidence and on the conclusion of proceedings the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 18.4.1996 dismissed the suit. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court the plaintiff filed the first appeal before the Addl. District Judge, Hisar, who for his detailed reasons as contained in the judgment dated 15.9.2000 dismissed the appeal and it will be appropriate on my part to reproduce in verbatim the findings of the first Appellate Court as contained in para No. 18 of the judgment, as under :- "18. The plaintiff has claimed his ownership and possession on the disputed plot. He has altogether failed to prove his ownership. He has also not been able to establish as to in what capacity he entered into possession. No permanent structure has been constructed by the plaintiff over the disputed plot and it is lying vacant. The defendant has asserted that it is the owner of the disputed plot. Vacant land in abadi, if not owned by any person, it is to be considered as the property of the Municipal Committee. Even if the Municipal Committee is not recorded as owner of such vacant land, then also at least the management of the same remains within the competence of the Municipal Committee. Moreover, the plaintiff has to stand at his own legs and he cannot take the advantage of the weakness of the case of the defendant. The plaintiff is neither proved to be owner nor in lawful possession of the disputed plot. Thus, he being trespasser, is not entitled to injunction against the Municipal Committee. In this context, reference may also be made to Mohan Lal v. Mohan Singh, 1995 PLJ 48 wherein it was held by out Honble High Court that where any attempt is made by an individual or group of individuals to misappropriate/misuse or otherwise interfere with the enjoyment of public property by people in general, Courts have to be extremely conscious in granting injunction in favour of such person only on the ground that he is in possession of the property. Possession of public property by such individual or group of individuals is no possession in the eyes of law. Such a person cannot claim any right, whatsoever, on the basis of unlawful occupation of public property. Plaintiff in such like cases cannot claim parity with a person who has a dispute with another individual over a private property. In the instant case, as the plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership and lawful possession over the disputed plot which is lying vacant. He is not entitled to injunction against the Municipal Committee, who is to manage the disputed plot for the benefit of the public at large, even if not proved to be its owner." In this manner the present appeal. 7. I have heard Mr. R.S. Mittal, Senior Advocate, on behalf of the appellant and with his assistance have gone through the record of this case. 8. The case set up by the plaintiff before the trial court was that he was owner and in possession of the plot for the last 20 years. When the plaintiff came in the witness-box, he admitted that there is no documentary evidence in his possession with regard to title. Faced with this difficulty the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the onus lies upon the Municipal Committee to show that it is owner of the property and even if it is established that the plaintiff-appellant is a trespasser, he is entitled to protect his possession against the rightful owner. This argument is not acceptable to his Court. I have stated earlier that the case of the plaintiff was that he was owner in possession of the plot in question. The plaintiff has to succeed on his own legs and cannot take the advantage of the weakness of evidence of the defendant. When the plaintiff failed to establish his title, his possession cannot be considered as rightful one. The possession of a trespasser, howsoever long may be, cannot be allowed to be protected. He cannot be allowed to thrive the public property. 9. It was then submitted by the learned senior counsel that as per the report of the Local Commissioner possession of the plaintiff was established. I have gone through the reasons adopted by the Court below and have come to this conclusion that both the Courts have rightly disbelieved the observations of the Local Commissioner. 9. It was then submitted by the learned senior counsel that as per the report of the Local Commissioner possession of the plaintiff was established. I have gone through the reasons adopted by the Court below and have come to this conclusion that both the Courts have rightly disbelieved the observations of the Local Commissioner. The only impression which I have gathered is that the plaintiff wanted to usurp the land of the Committee. He tried to put barbed wire fencing which was removed by the Committee. He has not been able to prove his rightful possession on the site in question and in these circumstances equitable relief of injunction cannot be granted in his favour. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon Sohan Singh and another v. Jhaman, 1986 PLJ 168 and submitted that even if the plaintiff was not in a position to establish his ownership, he is still entitled to the relief of injunction on the basis of his possessory title. I have already stated above that the possession of the plaintiff was not held to be lawful. His possession, if any remained at any time, is that of a trespasser and such possession cannot be protected in view of the judgment of this Court passed in Jit Singh v. Sardara Singh, 2000(3) RCR(Civil) 566. Resultantly, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.