Chandigarh, February 23, 2022: While dealing with a regular second appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a person occupying a house in his capacity as a licensee/watchman cannot injunct the true owner by way of seeking a permanent injunction.
In this case, the plaintiff/appellant approached the Court to decide his regular second appeal wherein the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below in a suit for permanent injunction, were challenged.
The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction, seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over a house. The plaintiff pleaded that he purchased the suit property from Pataso Devi, vide General Power of Attorney executed in favour of Madhusudhan and full and final payment was made to the defendants and possession thereof was delivered to the appellant in 2006. Further, the plaintiff claimed that he constructed the house on the suit property by spending huge money.
The defendants contested the suit and also set up a counterclaim.
The Courts below found that the document relied upon by the plaintiff was merely an agreement to sell and that the title vested in the defendants as owners. Plaintiff admitted that he was occupying the land as a licensee/watchman.
The Bench of Justice Raj Mohan Singh, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, opined at the outset that it is a settled principle of law that no specific notice to terminate the licence is required and that the filing of suit itself is a constructive notice in the light of counterclaim filed by the defendants.
Further, the Bench also observed that the legitimate owner of the property i.e. defendants revoked the licence and the Courts below rightly decreed the counterclaim thereby granting the decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the defendants.
Lastly, on finding no legal point worth consideration in the regular second appeal of the plaintiff/ appellant, the High Court dismissed the same.