Nishan Singh vs Bharat Industry Works

Sat Pal, J.—This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 28.11.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar. By this judgment, the learned Additional District Judge has reversed the judgment of the learned trial Court and has accepted the appeal of the respondent defendant with costs.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner/plaintiff filed suit against the defendant/respondent for permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfereing with the possession of the land. The only document which was relied upon by the plaintiff was an order dated 23.4.1993 passed by AC II Grade copy of which is Ex. P3. In terms of this order, the plaintiff was shown in possession of the suit land since 1989. It may, however, be relevant to note here that in the same order the land was shown as "Gair Mumkin". The aforesaid order dated 23.4.1993 was, however, reviewed by AC II Grade vide order dated 16.6.1994.

Mr. Pheruman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the order dated 16.6.1994 passed by AC II Grade was itself stayed by Commissioner (Appeal) Jalandhar Division when the appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant was admitted by the Commissioner. He, therefore, contended that as per revenue records, the petitioner/plaintiff has been shown in possession of the suit land since 1989 and as such the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge cannot be legally sustained.

Mr. Verka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, submits that the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Chandigarh has already disposed of the appeal vide order dated 14.11.1996 and in terms of the said order, the appeal filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the order dated 16.5.1994 has been dismissed. Since the appeal itself has been dismissed, the interim stay granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar Division, Chandigarh stands vacated.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned judgment, I do not find any infirmity or illegaltiy in the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar. It is not disputed by the appellant that priot to 1989 he was not in possession of the suit land. The only document on which the appellant has relied with regard to his possession is order dated 23.4.1993 passed by A.C. II Grade (Ex.P3) and that order, as stated herein above, itself was set aside vide order dated 16.6.1994 passed by the AC II Grade after he had visited the suit premises and the order dated 16.6.1994 has since been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar Division vide order dated 14.11.1996. Even otherwise, from the impugned judgment, I find that the appellant has miserably failed to prove that he was in possession of the suit land. The appellant who appeared himself as PW1 stated that he was a tenant on the suit land and had been paying 1/2 share of the crop sown by him in the suit land whereas in the plaint he had stated that he had been paying rent as per the agreement though neither any particular of that agreement was mentioned nor even the amount of rent has been mentioned. PW2 Ajit Singh who also appeared as witness on behalf of the plaintiff stated that the appellant had sown wheat crop in the suit property whereas the appellant himself stated that he had sown cherry in the suit land. From these facts, it is clear that the appellant has failed to prove his possession on the suit land.

Since the appellant has failed to prove his possession, he cannot be granted any injunction against the true owner of the suit land. In this connection reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Premji Ratansey Shan and others v. Union of India, 1994(6) SC 585 : 1995(3) RRR 11.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs.