In RSA No.4388 of 2019 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- In suit for injunction, it is incumbent on plaintiff to prove his possession over suit property, reaffirms P&H HC
Justice Alka Sarin [14-03-2023]

Read Order: MADAN MOHAN DEVGAN VS ASHWANI GROVER

Mansimran Kaur

Chandigarh, March 15, 2023: Without finding any merit in the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below dismissing his suit for permanent injunction, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the same.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Alka Sarin dismissed the instant appeal by observing that there was  no evidence on the record to prove that the plaintiff-appellant was  in exclusive possession over the suit property. 

The brief facts relevant to the present lis were that the plaintiff -appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant- respondent from interfering in his actual peaceful possession over the plot shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint and described in detail in the plaint. 

The plaintiff-appellant averred that he was in possession of the plot in question on the basis of a registered sale deed and that the defendant-respondent was interfering in his possession. The defendant -respondent filed his reply and averred that the plaintiff-appellant was neither the owner nor in possession of the suit property. The defendant-respondent had set-up his ownership over the suit property.  

The Trial Court through  judgment and decree dated April 8, 2016 held that the defendant-respondent was a co-sharer in the suit property by way of sale deed which included  the plot in question purchased by the plaintiff-appellant, and therefore the plaintiff-appellant was held not entitled to the grant of permanent injunction. 

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellant which was also dismissed through judgment and decree dated November 10, 2017.  Hence, the present regular second appeal. 

After considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Court noted that in the present case the plaintiff-appellant woefully failed to show his possession over the suit property. Both the Courts below had concurrently found as a matter of fact that the plaintiff-appellant had failed to prove his possession over the suit property.

“It is trite that in a suit for injunction it is incumbent on the plaintiff to prove his possession over the suit property”, the Court further remarked. 

There was no evidence on the record to prove that the plaintiff-appellant was in exclusive possession over the suit property.  In view such observations, the Court failed to find any merit in the present appeal. Concurrent findings of fact returned by both the Courts below warranted no interference by the High Court.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, stemmed in the present case, the Bench held while dismissing the appeal.