Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 642 (PNJ)

Bhajan Lal v. Ram Bhaj

2010-01-27

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2010
Judgment Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. 1. This is plaintiffs second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby a suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed. 2. In the suit plaintiff alleged that he was owner in possession of the suit property forming part of khasra No. 148 min/142 min, as per jamabandi for the year 1995-96. The defendant-respondent had got no concern whatsoever with the suit land and was stranger to the aforesaid suit property, which was owned and possessed by the appellant. It was further submitted by the appellant that respondent in execution of a civil Court decree against one Darshan singh regarding possession of some property in Civil Suit No. 100 of 1992/1996, had obtained warrant of possession dated 28.8.2001 for getting the possession of the property which was the subject matter of the aforesaid civil suit and the said decree and the warrant of possession were not concerned with the suit land. Respondent No. 1 in collusion with respondent No. 2 wanted to occupy the suit land forcibly and illegally. 3. It is the further case of the appellant that during the pendency of the suit on the basis of the aforesaid warrant of possession, which did not belong to the suit land, he was forcibly dispossessed on 18.11.2001 by the defendants from an area measuring 12 feet x 25 feet shown as AEFD in the attached plan. The appellant was dispossessed without any demarcation and without specifying the khasra number. Since the plaintiff was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit from the part of the suit land illegally, therefore, he was entitled to restoration of possession. The plaintiff approached and requested the defendants to admit his claim but to no effect, hence the present suit. 4. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondent asserting that they were delivered the possession of the suit land through the court and thus the suit of the plaintiff had become in-fructuous. It was further submitted that the plaintiff was neither owner nor in possession of the suit land and has no concern with the same. The decree was passed in favour of the respondent in Civil Suit No. 100 of 1992/1996 and possession of the suit property was taken in execution of the said decree in a legal and lawful manner. 5. The decree was passed in favour of the respondent in Civil Suit No. 100 of 1992/1996 and possession of the suit property was taken in execution of the said decree in a legal and lawful manner. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, both the courts below dismissed the suit of the appellant, 6. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff-appellant has approached this Court challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant was in possession of the suit land in his own right and had nothing to do with the decree passed against Darshan Singh and, therefore, he has been dispossessed from the suit land forcibly and illegally. 8. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that the appellant has failed to prove on record his lawful possession over the suit land and he was dispossessed from the suit property in compliance of warrant of possession issued by the competent Court of law in favour of the respondent and the possession was, delivered to him in due course of law and, therefore, he was not entitled to the relief claimed. The finding of fact returned by the Courts below do not require interference by this Court. 9. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration. 10. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.