Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3087 (PNJ)

Sadhu Singh v. Thakardawara Bhagwan Narainji

2006-08-01

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2006
JUDGMENT S.N. Aggarwal, J. - Thakardawara Bhagwan Narain Ji, Darbar Pandori Mahantan, Tehsil Gurdaspur, through its Mohtim Mahant Gobind Dass Chela Mahant Ram Dass, respondent herein, filed the civil suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the appellants herein from raising any type of construction and making any encroachment in the land measuring 1 kanal 2 marlas. The case of the Thakardawara was that the said land was owned by it which was cultivated through its tenant and the appellants were threatening to encroach upon it and raise construction. 2. On the other hand, the case of the appellants was that the suit land was owned by Gram Panchayat Dakhla. It was leased out by the said Gram Panchayat about two years back. It was given to the villagers for the construction of the Gurdawara and at present, Gurdawara has been constructed over this piece of land. Issues were framed and parties led evidence. The respondent Thakardawara also took the plea that it has been dispossessed by the appellants during the pendency of the suit. The Local Commissioner was appointed and the learned Trial Court after discussing the evidence led by the parties reached the conclusion that the suit land was owned by the respondent Thakardawara and its possession was taken by the appellants during the pendency of the suit land, therefore, the decree for mandatory injunction was granted by the leaned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.1998 requiring the appellants to remove the construction from the suit land. 3. The appellants filed the appeal. In the said appeal, learned Lower Appellate Court upheld the finding recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 11.08.1999. Hence this appeal. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Gram Panchayat has not been impleaded who was the owner or in possession of the suit property. This submission has no force at all. Respondent has been held the owner of the suit property and even according to the appellants the said land was given to the villagers by the Gram Panchayat for construction of Gurdawara therefore, neither the Gram Panchayat of village Dakhla was the necessary party nor its non-impleadment is fatal to the case of the respondent. 5. Respondent has been held the owner of the suit property and even according to the appellants the said land was given to the villagers by the Gram Panchayat for construction of Gurdawara therefore, neither the Gram Panchayat of village Dakhla was the necessary party nor its non-impleadment is fatal to the case of the respondent. 5. The report of the Local Commissioner reveals that some construction has been raised on the suit land. The conclusion of the learned trial Court is that this construction has been raised by the appellants during the pendency of the civil suit. Therefore, this decree for mandatory injunction was granted calling upon the appellants to remove the construction raised over the site in dispute. 6. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that only relief for permanent injunction was prayed by the respondent but the learned trial Court has granted the relief of mandatory injunction also which was not prayed. However, the Court where the matter is pending is competent to grant any relief, which is considered by it to be necessary to do justice to the parties. Since the trial Court had reached the conclusion that the respondent was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit and some construction has been raised over the suit land, therefore, the trial Court is justified in granting the decree for mandatory injunction. 7. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact that respondent Thakardawara is the owner of the suit land and it was in illegal possession of the appellants, who have raised construction over it. I find no ground to disturb the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below. Therefore, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.