Yousaf Masih vs J.S. Yuhanna

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—This is plaintiff''s second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from forcibly and illegally dispossessing him from the suit property was dismissed.

In brief as per the averments made in the plaint grand-father of the appellant was working with the defendant-school and was allotted the suit property i.e, his residential house Quarter No. 10, Queens Road, Alexendra School, Amritsar. After his death, father of the plaintiff started working in the defendant-school and his father along with his wife and children started residing in the suit property. After his death mother of the plaintiff was given employment in the school and she along with plaintiff and other family members started residing in the suit property. It was further averred that mother of the plaintiff had also died and after her death plaintiff was residing along his family in the suit property. Thus, according to the appellant he was residing in the suit property for the last about 30 years and defendant had no right to dispossess him from the suit property except in due course of law. It was further averred that the defendant was threatening to dispossess him forcibly, hence the present suit was filed.

Upon notice, the suit was contested by the respondents submitting that the plaintiff was a trespasser in the suit property as he was neither a tenant nor lessee, nor employee of the school, and in fact the appellant was working somewhere else. However, it was admitted that the suit property was allotted to his father and later on to his mother on compassionate grounds who was an abandoned lady. After her death the plaintiff forcibly entered into the premises by breaking upon the locks and a criminal case was also pending against him in this regard. Other material averments made in the plaint were denied and the dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

Both the Courts below on appreciation of the evidence on record and the pleadings of the parties recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the appellant was neither a tenant nor licensee nor employee of the school; and was a trespasser and held that an injunction cannot be granted against a true owner on the asking of a person who was in unlawful possession of the property in dispute.

Not satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decrees of the Courts below, the appellant has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from dispossessing the plaintiff-appellant from the suit land illegally and forcibly except in due course of law

In support of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that appellant was in long standing possession over the suit property and, therefore, he was entitled to injunction even against the rightful owner. In support of his case, learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Krishna Ram Mahale (Dead), by his Lrs. Vs. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao, wherein it was held that where a person is in settled possession of the property even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse of law.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below.

The facts of the case are not in dispute. The appellant is basing his claim for grant of permanent injunction, only on the ground of his settled possession over the suit property. Ownership of the respondent over the suit property is also not in dispute. This Court in the case of Sukhwant Singh v. Divisional Forest Officer 2009 (3) PLR 432 after noticing the different views of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in 2004 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 519 (S.C.) ; Premji Ratansey Shah and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ; Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Others Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Others, ; Prataprai N. Kothari Vs. John Braganza, ; Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and Others Vs. Puna Municipal Corporation and Another, ; Mahadevo Savlaram Sheike v. Pune Municipal Corporation (1996) 8 S.C.C. 259; Shiv Kumar Chadha and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others, ; Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi AIR 1924 PC 144 ; Lallu Yeshwant Singh Vs. Rao Jagdish Singh and Others, ; Nair Service Society Ltd. Vs. Rev. Father K.C. Alexander and Others, ; M.C. Chockalingam and Others Vs. V. Manickavasagam and Others, ; Krishna Ram Mahale (Dead), by his Lrs. Vs. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao, ; Nagar Palika, Jind Vs. Jagat Singh, Advocate, ; Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs. Anil Panjwani, ; Ramesh Chand Ardawariya v. Anil Panjwani 1996 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 349 ; Gurcharan Singh Vs. District/Chief Agricultural Officer and Another, ; Gurcharan Singh v. District/Chief Agricultural Officer, Jalandhar 2000 (4) R.C.R (Civil) 65 (Ker); Guardian Angel Engg. Medium High School v. St. George Yacobaya Syrian Church and 1998(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 311 Om Parkash v. State of Haryana held that an injunction cannot be granted at the asking of a trespasser against the true owner of the suit property.

Thus in view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

No merit. Dismissed.