Jasbir Singh vs Laxmi Narain and Others

Mahesh Grover, J.

C.W. No. 4611 of 2008

The application is allowed and delay of 87 days in refiling of the appeal is condoned.

R.S.A. No. 1474 of 2008

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.10.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge-I, Jhajjar (hereinafter described as the First Appellate Court'') whereby the judgment and decree dated 9.6.2004 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahadurgarh (referred to hereinafter as the trial Court'') were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed.

Originally, Jasbir Singh, the present appellant and one Jai Bhagwan had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents by pleading that they were owners in possession of a residential plot situated in the abadi deh of village Bupania. It was further pleaded that plot No. 8052 of which they were in possession, was allotted to their forefathers in the settlement of 1879 and they had inherited the same. It was averred that they were using the plot in question for tethering their cattle, storing fuel etc. and the respondents had no right, title or interest in the same. It was further averred that since the respondents were powerful persons, they were trying to interfere in their peaceful possession over the plot in question.

Upon notice, the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 7 appeared and filed written statement contesting the claim of the appellant and Jai Bhagwan. A site plan was also annexed by them. It was pleaded that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were in possession of the disputed property which was shown in green colours and marked by letters ABCD and while respondent Nos. 5 to 7 were in possession of the suit property shown in blue colour and marked by letters AEFGHL and the appellant and Jai Bhagwan had no concern with the same.

It is pertinent to mention here that Jai Bhagwan (plaintiff No. 2) made a statement on 30.9.2002 that he did not want to proceed with the suit and his name be deleted from the array of the plaintiffs, which was accordingly ordered by the trial Court.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:

Whether the plaintiff Jasbir Singh is owner in possession of a plot bearing No. 8052 situated within the abadi of village as detailed in para No. 2 of the plaint?OPP

Whether the plaintiff is using the plot in question for tethering their cattle etc. since the time immemorial as mentioned in para No. 3 of the plaint?OPP

Whether the defendants are liable to be restrained from raising any construction and interfering into peaceful possession of plaintiff over the plot in dispute on the ground as stated in the plaint?OPP

Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD

Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD

Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD

Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties/OPD

Relief.

After appraisal of the evidence before it, the trial Court concluded that the appellant had been successful in establishing his case and accordingly, a decree for permanent injunction was passed in his favour and against the respondents.

Aggrieved by the findings of the trial Court, the respondents filed an appeal which was accepted by the First Appellate Court and it was held that the appellant had miserably failed to prove that he had any connection with the suit property which earlier belonged to Ram Sahai and dismissed the suit.

Hence, this Regular Second Appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court are perverse and deserve to be set aside.

I have thoughtfully considered the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgment.

It may be mentioned here that the matter was adjourned a number of times to enable the learned Counsel for the appellant to produce a pedigree table which was essential for decision of the controversy involved herein, but he could not do so.

Having gone through the impugned judgment, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court. The appellant had claimed himself to be the successor-in-interest of Ram Sahai to whom the plot was allotted in settlement in the year 1879. There is no dispute regarding this fact that plot No. 8052 was allotted to Ram Sahai. However, there is no cogent evidence on record to prove that fact. But, since there is nothing to prove that the appellant is successor-in-interest of Ram Sahai, his claim to the suit plot No. 80-52 which he based solely on the strength of succession is, therefore, without any substance.

Therefore, the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court do not warrant any interference in the Regular Second Appeal.

No substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen for determination in this appeal which is dismissed.