BALDEV SINGH Vs. KULBIR SINGH
LAWS(P&H)-2009-7-78
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on July 23,2009

BALDEV SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
KULBIR SINGH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ACHAL REDDY VS. RAMAKRISHNAREDDIAR [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH CHAND SHARMA VS. RAJ KUMARI SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
SHIV KUMAR VS. AJUDHIA NATH [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

MRS.SABINA, J. - (1.)THIS order shall dispose of RSA Nos. 4369 and 4370 of 2006 as these have arisen out of same suit/counter claim.
(2.)PLAINTIFF Baldev Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction inter alia restraining the defendants from interfering in the land in dispute. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed and counter claim of the defendants was allowed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.1998. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 5.10.2006. Hence, the present appeals by the plaintiff.
Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 1 to 4 of its judgment, are as under :- "1. The facts of the case briefly stated are that Baldev Singh, appellant/plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the property in dispute. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff is in possession of the land in dispute measuring 24 K-11 M. detailed in the head note of the plaint and he is cultivating the said land as prospective vendee under the agreement to sell dated 12.8.1975 executed by the defendants and their deceased mother Jatto @ Jind Kaur in his favour followed by another agreement to sell dated 17.6.76 through which period was extended for execution of the Sale Deed. Sale Deed was to be executed by the defendant after getting permission from the competent authority under Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976. The defendants have not been able to get permission from the competent authority, as per agreement. Smt. Jatto had died and the defendants are his legal representatives. The defendants are threatening to take forcible possession of the land with the help of their husband and relations. They tried to interfere in his possession over the suit land. He asked the defendants time and again not to take law in their own hands, but they refused. As such, he is entitled to permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession, forcibly on the land in dispute. 2. The suit was contested by the defendants. In their written statement they took preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable. Plaintiff had not come to Court with clean hands and has concealed facts. The possession of the plaintiff is permissive and on behalf of the owners and as such, he is not entitled to injunction, plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the suit, the suit is not maintainable in the present form, the correct Khasra Nos. of the property have not been mentioned and that entries in the revenue record are wrong. Regarding merits, it was stated that the possession of the plaintiff is under agreement to sell executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. It was admitted that the plaintiff was in possession under agreement to sell. The defendants pleaded that the Sale Deed was to be executed after getting permission from the competent authority and they actually applied for the permission but permission was refused by the competent authority and as such, Sale Deed could not be executed as per agreement. They have been demanding possession from the plaintiff and he had been promising to give the same. The plaintiff in November, 1994 refused to give possession. It was denied by the defendants that they have tried to take forcibly possession of the property or they intended to take forcible possession of the land. 3. Defendants filed counter claim for recovery of possession, pleading therein that they being owner of the property in dispute and permission to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff as per agreement having been refused by the competent authority, they are entitled to take possession of the property in dispute from the plaintiffs. Possession of the plaintiffs was permissive and was on their behalf, and as such, they are entitled to decree for possession of the property in dispute.

(3.)IN the replication filed by the plaintiff, allegations made in the written statement were denied and those made in the plaint were reiterated. In the replication, it was pleaded by the plaintiff that his possession has been adverse, hostile, uninterrupted for more than 12 years, to the knowledge of the defendants and world at large and he has even become owner of the property through adverse possession. His possession not being permissible, he acquired title in the property in dispute." 4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court :- "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the defendant is entitled to relief of possession as claimed in the counter-claim ? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff No. 1 have become owner in possession of the suit land on the basis of adverse possession ? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPP


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.