Uday Ram vs Geeta Ram

Sanjay Karol, J.—Plaintiff-appellant Uday Ram (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.7.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in Civil Appeal No. 10-N/13 of 2011, titled as Uday Ram versus Shri Geeta Ram, whereby judgment and decree dated 24.10.2011, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, in Civil Suit No. 94/1 of 2008, titled as Uday Ram versus Geeta Ram, stands affirmed. Plaintiff filed a suit contending that he is owner in possession of 0.9 bigha of land, comprising Khata Khatauni No. 336 min/1030, Khasra No. 4039/3662, situated in Mauza Kando Dugana, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. Plaintiff apprehended threat of his dispossession from the hands of the defendant-respondent Geeta Ram (hereinafter referred to as the defendant).

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

Whether the plaintiff is in possession of suit land, as alleged? OPP

Whether the defendant is interfering and raising construction in the suit land without any right, title and interest? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP

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

Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true facts from the Court and has not approached the Court with clean hands? OPD

Whether the construction is being raised on Khasra No. 626 measuring 0-4 bighas, if so its effect? OPD

Whether this land is purchased by the defendant from Sh. Khazan Singh and his other Smt. Shawni Devi vide agreement for sale dated 4-4-1993? OPD

Relief.

Both the Courts below have found the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit land. However suit was dismissed on the ground that no cause of action had accrued in favour of the plaintiff seeking a decree of injunction.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered view that the findings rendered by the Courts below are neither illegal nor perverse and erroneous, warranting interference by this Court. There is no proven threat to the plaintiff''s possession over the suit land.

It be only noticed that during the pendency of the present appeal, in order to put an end to the controversy in issue, this Court appointed a Local Commissioner, i.e. Naib Tehsildar, to visit the spot in question. As per the report of the Naib Tehsildar, entry in the name of the plaintiff with regard to 0.9 bigha of land has been wrongly reflected by the revenue authorities. Plaintiff was entitled to ownership of only 0.4 bigha of land. Be that as it may, this issue is not the subject matter of the present appeal and the question is left open. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. As such, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.