Chand and Another vs Yog Raj and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—Defendants No. 1 and 2 (appellants herein) have filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 28.9.2012, passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, in Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2010, titled as Chand and another versus Yog Raj and others, whereby judgment and decree dated 24.4.2010, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Mandi, in Civil Suit No. 23/2008/2001, titled as Yog Raj and another versus Chand and others, stands affirmed. Plaintiffs (respondents No. 1 & 2 herein), as non-occupancy tenants, claim themselves to be joint owners in possession of the suit land alongwith the proforma-defendants (respondents No. 3 to 13 herein). By virtue of the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, they claim to have perfected their title over the suit land as owner. When defendants stacked certain construction material over the suit land, plaintiffs objected to the same. When despite requests, defendants persisted with their acts, plaintiffs filed suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction.

Contesting defendants resisted the suit, inter alia, claiming possession of the suit land, having perfected their title on the plea of adverse possession.

Based on the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues:

Whether the plaintiff is owner of suit land, as alleged?

OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for?

OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for?

OPP

Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit?

OPD

Whether the proforma defendants are tenants over the suit land as alleged, if so its effect?

OPD

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit as alleged?

OPD

Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties, as alleged?

OPD

Whether the defendants No. 1 & 2 respectively have become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession, as alleged?

OPD

Relief.

The plaintiffs'' suit, based on the evidence so led by the parties, stands decreed by the trial Court in the following terms:

In view of the my findings on the aforesaid issues, as discussed above, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, whereby decree for permanent prohibitory injunction is passed restraining defendants from raising further any sort of construction over the suit land in any manner comprised khewat khatauni No. 41 min/46 min, khasra No. 260, measuring 2-0-2 bigha situated in Mauja Padhru/280, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. and decree for mandatory injunction is also passed directing the defendants to demolish the construction over any part of the suit land. Decree be prepared accordingly and file after its due completion be consigned to the record room.

Aggrieved thereof only the contesting defendants (appellants herein) filed appeal before the lower appellate Court, which stands dismissed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in my considered view, no case for interference is made out in the present appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for consideration in this appeal.

Noticeably, parties have been litigating since the year 2001 and all litigations must come to an end at some stage, more so when no case for interference is made out.

The Courts below, based on the testimony of the defendants'' witnesses, more particularly, Shri Bhikham (DW-2), have rejected the defendants plea of adverse possession. Neither could they prove their possession, muchless adverse, over the suit land either by way of oral or documentary evidence. I see no reason to differ with the said findings of fact.

Noticeably plaintiffs, pursuant to the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, did file an application before the appropriate authority, claiming rights over the suit land. Proforma-defendants, who ordinarily ought to have supported the plaintiff as co-tenants, in fact came out to support the defence of the contesting defendants of they being in possession. Even this plea stands rejected by the Courts below. Noticeably, the contesting defendants have not challenged the findings, in the instant appeal, which adversely affect them. It appears that the instant appeal stands filed for and on behalf of the proforma-defendants, who in fact did not prefer any appeal before the lower appellate Court and accepted the findings of the trial Court. As such, it cannot be held that findings returned by the Courts below are illegal, perverse and erroneous, warranting interference by this Court. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly.

For all the aforesaid 9 reasons, the appeal is dismissed and disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.