Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 125 (PNJ)

Nathi v. Balihar Singh

2002-01-28

AMAR DUTT

body2002
JUDGMENT Amar Dutt, J. - Nathi had brought a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession for the last 8/9 years over the house marked ABCDEF shown in the site plan annexed with the plaint which is forming a part of Khasra No. 33//6/3. According to him, a dispute had arisen between him and defendant No. 1 which was resolved through a family settlement, according to which, the aforesaid defendant had agreed to execute a title deed in favour of the plaintiff within two months. The plaintiff being in unlawful possession was seeking protection thereof against the attempts of the defendants to interfere with the same. 2. The suit was contested on the ground that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the same. The suit was bad for non-joinder of co-sharers and had been filed with the connivance with the Gram Panchayat. The defendants claim to be in exclusive possession of the site, which was possessed by them as co-sharers. They used to tether their cattle, store fodder on the property in dispute and in July/August, 1993 the plaintiff had approached the defendants with a prayer that he may be given shelter on the property in dispute as his house was leaking due to heavy pains. The plaintiff had promised to vacate the same and on this assurance, he was inducted into property as a licensee. Defendants further stated that the plaintiff did not vacate the property as per the promise though so requested to do so in December, 1993 and when he did not vacate the same even thereafter the rights as licensee were terminated. The Gram Panchayat had been approached by the defendants in the matter and had obtained signatures of the parties on blank papers. When the plaintiff refused to abide by the same the defendants were advised to take recourse to other method available to them. In these circumstances, the suit had been filed to pre-empt the claim of the defendants and writing qua execution of a mortgage sale of family settlement had been prepared fraudulently by the plaintiff in connivance with the plaintiff. Defendants further submitted that the plaintiff was not entitled to remain in possession and, therefore, the claim of decree for possession be passed in their favour. 3. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Defendants further submitted that the plaintiff was not entitled to remain in possession and, therefore, the claim of decree for possession be passed in their favour. 3. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has raised construction in the site in dispute as alleged ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit as alleged ? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi ? OPD 6. Whether the suit has been filed in connivance with and at the instance of Gram Panchayat of village Kukran ? OPD 7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of all the co-sharers in khasra No. 33//6/3 ? OPD 8. Whether the defendants are entitled to decree for possession of the site in dispute against the plaintiff by way of counter-claim as alleged ? OPD 9. Whether the defendants have no locus standi to file counter- claim ? OPP 10. Whether the defendants are estopped from filing the counter- claim by their act and conduct ? OPP 11. Whether the counter-claim is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD 12. Relief. 4. The trial Court after perusing the evidence decided issues No. 1 to 5 and 8 to 10 against the plaintiff and issues No. 6, 7 and 11 against the defendants and the suit was dismissed and decreed the counter-claim. In appeal, the view taken by the trial Court was affirmed and the appeal dismissed. Nathi has come up in the second appeal. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. 6. The solitary ground, on which the interference is being sought in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur is that from Ex.P2, it is clear that Nathi was in possession of the suit property and, therefore, his possession had to be protected till he was dispossessed in accordance with law. The solitary ground, on which the interference is being sought in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur is that from Ex.P2, it is clear that Nathi was in possession of the suit property and, therefore, his possession had to be protected till he was dispossessed in accordance with law. This argument loses sight of the fact that in the written statement, the respondents had not only contested the right of appellant to remain in possession but also filed a counter-claim seeking a decree for possession against the plaintiff. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the defendant-respondents were entitled to the decree of possession and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has not been able to point out any circumstances, which would warrant a reversal of this view. Thus, the objection, which is being raised against the judgment and decree is not sustainable when two courts below have found as a fact that the defendants are entitled to recovery of possession of the property in dispute and have thereafter granted the decree of possession sought for by the defendant-respondents. No other point has been argued. There is not merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.