Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1129 (PNJ)

Punam Chand v. Sushil Kumar

2002-10-23

VINEY MITTAL

body2002
JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. - The defendants are in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa whereby the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Sirsa was set aside resulting in the decreeing of the suit filed by the plaintiff. 2. Originally, the suit was filed by Lalit Mohan for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The aforesaid Lalit Mohan had died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on the record. The present respondents No. 1 to 4 are the legal representative of the aforesaid Lalit Mohan. 3. In the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff, it was stated that he was owner in possession of the property in dispute by way of a judgment and decree dated November 5, 1979. In the year 1980, he had submitted a plan to the Municipal Committee for raising construction but had raised construction even prior to the grant of sanction by the Municipal Committee. Consequently, the Municipal Committee launched prosecution against the father of the plaintiff, namely, Kishan Lal for having raised construction without prior notice to the Committee. The plaintiff claimed that he was in possession of the suit property (Nohra) and that defendant No. 1, Punam Chand (now the present appellant) had got no connection with the said land. According to the plaintiff, the defendants in connivance with other persons wanted to convert the said land into a temple. 4. The suit filed by the plaintiff was contested by defendant Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Punam Chand and Dhanna Ram. They stated that suit property comprised in rectangle No. 163 killa No. 1/2/10/2/4 in Aggarsain colony and was not in rectangle No. 163 killa No. 1/1. A plea of adverse possession was also taken by them and the defendants claimed that the aforesaid property had remained in their possession for the last more than 12 years and that they had installed an Idol of Shri Hanumanji and had constructed a temple there. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff had got no right, title or interest in the property. It was also stated by the defendants that the property in question was not covered under the decree dated November 5, 1979. 5. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff had got no right, title or interest in the property. It was also stated by the defendants that the property in question was not covered under the decree dated November 5, 1979. 5. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. It was held that the suit property comprised in rectangle No. 163 killa No. 1/2/10/2/4 where an idol of Hanumanji was established and that the plaintiff was not in possession of the same. 6. An appeal was filed before the learned first appellate Court. The learned first appellate Court on the basis of appreciation of the entire oral as well as documentary evidence found it as a fact that the land in dispute was owned and possessed by the plaintiff and that the defendants had not become the owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned first appellate Court after setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court accepted the appeal and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 7. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, reversing the decree of trial Court defendant No. 1, Punam Chand has now approached this Court through the present second appeal. 8. I have heard Shri Jaswant Jain, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Sanjiv Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record. 9. Shri Jaswant Jain, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgment of the learned first appellate Court is erroneous inasmuch as it was not supported by the evidence on the record. It has also been pointed out that in fact there was an Idol of Shri Hanumanji fixed at the land in dispute and there was temple in existence. Shri Jain has also referred to the report of the Local Commissioner and submitted that such a temple did exist at the spot and that the plaintiff was not in possession of the same. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter but find myself unable to agree with the pleas raised by Shri Jain. 11. As per the decree sheet dated November 5, 1979 copy of which is Ex. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter but find myself unable to agree with the pleas raised by Shri Jain. 11. As per the decree sheet dated November 5, 1979 copy of which is Ex. P4 on the record, it is apparent that the plaintiff had become the owner in possession of the land in dispute by way of exchange. In the decree sheet, the land mentioned is killa No. 163/1/1 and the boundaries and measurements of the disputed plot have also been given. There is a copy of the jamabandi Ex. P.5 for the year 1980-81 and also Ex. P6 for the year 1985-86 showing that the plaintiff was the owner in possession of the killa No. 163/1/1. The learned first appellate Court has also referred to the other record produced by the plaintiff showing that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the submission of Shri Jain that the plaintiff is not shown in possession of the said land. 12. The plea raised by Shri Jain with regard to the report of the Local Commissioner is also without any basis. The learned first appellate Court after noticing the details given in the report held that the Idol had not been affixed or installed and had simply been placed and the place was not being used as a temple. 13. It is apparent that the findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court are basically the findings of fact on appreciation of the evidence. No perversity in recording the aforesaid findings has been pointed out by Shri Jain. In this view of the matter, no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises in the present petition necessitating any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present appeal being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.