Sahib Singh v. Tejpal Singh

IN T

Sahib Singh Tejpal Singh (Si

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Ms

Ms

For

Res MANDEEP PA

1.

Regular Second the Courts bel respondent–defe dispossessing h was dismissed.

2.

Court vide judg plaintiff before t decree dated 28 Brief Facts

3.

Bri physical possess THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re Da

VERSUS ince deceased) through LRs and ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate and s. Gagan Bir Kaur, Advocate for s. Meena Bansal, Advocate r legal representatives of respond spondent No.5 is stated to have d -.-

ANNU, J. e appellant–plaintiff, Sahib S d Appeal against the concurrent ow whereby his suit for perm endant, Tej Pal Singh, from im from the plot marked as AB e suit was instituted on 18.07.1 ment and decree dated 18.01.19 the learned First Appellate Cour .10.1999. iefly stated, the case of the pl sion of the suit plot marked as A

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-3048-2000 (O&M) served on:-14.10.2025 ate of Decision : 27.10.2025

....Appellant Another ....Respondents DEEP PANNU the appellant. dent No.1. died. Singh, has preferred the pres t findings of fact recorded by b manent injunction restraining interfering in his possession BCD, situated in village Faizpu 994, dismissed by the learned t 997, and the appeal preferred by rt was dismissed vide judgment laintiff is that he is in actual ABCD as per the site plan attach

- sent both or ura, trial

with the plaint. that the defenda visited the villag is further plead before Shri Huk assurance of th plaintiff alleges compelling him

4.

preliminary ob description of th that the plaintif Mohan Singh comprised in Kh

15.05.1974 for c has been in own and had raised defendant, has absence.

5.

Fro

1. OP

2.

6.

In Draftsman, who who deposed th He has raised a boundary wall ant, who had been residing in Bo ge and threatened to dispossess ded that an earlier suit filed by kam Chand, Sub Judge Ist Class, he defendant that the plaintiff that the defendant again attemp to file the present suit for perma e defendant–Tej Pal Singh, bjections regarding the maint he property, and lack of cause o ff is an illegal occupant and tha son of Natha Singh, who ha hasra No. 12/16/1/1 to the defend consideration of ₹13,300/-. It wa nership and possession of the su boundary wall in May/June 19 illegally trespassed into the p om the pleadings of the parties, th Whether the plaintiff is ent PP Relief. support of his case, the plainti o proved the site plan (Ex. P-1 hat the plaintiff had been in pos

around it and sown jawar crop ombay for the last 20 years, recen him without due process of law the plaintiff against the defend Batala, had been withdrawn on f would not be dispossessed. T ted to interfere with his possessi anent injunction. in his written statement, to tainability of the suit, impro of action. On merits, it was plea at the suit land was owned by o ad sold land measuring 3 kan dant vide registered sale deed da as further pleaded that the defend uit land since the date of purch

¶994The plaintiff, according to property taking advantage of he following issues were framed titled to the injunction prayed f ff examined PW1 Satish Chand ). PW2 Barkat Masih, Draftsm ssession of the plot for 9–10 ye

- ntly . It dant ion, ook oper ded one nals ated dant hase his d: for? der, man,

PW3 Mohinder years and had ra examination tha registered sale d with the defenda

7.

On deed executed i testimony. Findings of the

8.

held that the p property from M The alleged ora consideration, o without any law the defendant's in Premji Ratan was held that a Accordingly, the Findings of the

9.

On and evidence an plea of the p misconceived. W plaintiff's poss admitted by the Singh, who also deposed that th aised a boundary wall. Himself at the defendant had purchased th deed (Ex.D-1), and that he ente ant but no date, year, or consider n the other hand, the defendant in his favour by Mohan Singh, e Trial Court e learned trial Court, after anal plaintiff himself admitted that Mohan Singh, and thus ownersh al agreement to sell pleaded by t or proof. The plaintiff's entry int wful right; he had trespassed upo absence. Relying upon the judgm nsey Shah & Ors. v. Union of I trespasser is not entitled to an e suit was dismissed. e First Appellate Court n appeal, the learned First Appell nd concurred with the findings of laintiff that the defendant ha When read as a whole, the wr ession over the plot. The ow plaintiff himself in his testimony

he plaintiff was in possession fo as PW4 and admitted in his cro he suit plot from Mohan Singh v ered into an oral agreement to ration was stated or pleaded. produced a photocopy of the s which the plaintiff admitted in lyzing the pleadings and eviden the defendant had purchased hip of the defendant stands prov the plaintiff is vague, without d to possession was unauthorized on the property taking advantage ment of the Hon'ble Supreme Co India & Ors., 1994 (5) SCC 547 injunction against the true own late Court reappraised the pleadi f the trial Court. It was held that ad admitted his possession w ritten statement clearly denied wnership of the defendant sta y. The plaintiff, being

- or 8 oss-vide sell sale his nce, ved. date, e of ourt 7, it ner. ngs was ands a

trespasser, is n placed upon Pre 1998 (3) CCC 4 person in unlaw

10.

Ag appellant has pr legal representat Submissions of

11.

Lea Courts below er respondent/defe preliminary obj injunction ough sale deed in fav findings of both this Court on 02 appellant was pr that such interim

12.

On representatives below and con defendant, cann possession unlaw trespasser canno proper appreciat

ot entitled to equitable relief o emji Ratansey Shah (supra) and 404 (P&H), to hold that no injun wful possession. Accordingly, th grieved by the concurrent fin referred the present appeal, whi tives of respondent No.1. f learned counsel for the partie arned counsel for the appellant rred in law and on facts in dismis endant had admitted the poss jections of his written statem ht to have been decreed. It was vour of the defendant was not pr h courts are perverse. Counsel a

2.09.2003 at the time of admissio rotected from dispossession "ex m protection implied recognition n the other hand, learned coun of respondent No.1 supported tended that the plaintiff, havin not seek injunction against the tru wfully, without any valid agreem ot claim equity in his favour. Th tion of evidence and settled law

of injunction. Reliance was ag d Om Parkash v. State of Harya nction can be granted in favour o e appeal was dismissed. ndings of the Courts below, ich upon notice is contested by s t/plaintiff contended that both ssing the suit. It was argued that session of the appellant in ment, and therefore, the suit further contended that the alle roved according to law and that also referred to the order passed on of the present RSA, whereby cept in due course of law," argu of his possession. nsel appearing on behalf of le the judgments of both the cou ng admitted the ownership of ue owner. The plaintiff entered i ment to sell or document of title he concurrent findings are based and call for no interference.

- gain ana, of a for ged d by uing egal urts into e. A

Findings of this

13.

Aft this Court finds ownership of th purchased the la the defendant s unsubstantiated,

14.

plaintiff was tr injunction to pr down in Premj Parkash v. Stat facts of this case

15.

restrained dispo nature and cann prevents forcible

16.

court below. T appreciation of l Conclusion

17.

In appellant Sahib granted against findings of the infirmity. s Court ter hearing learned counsel for t s no merit in the appeal. The pl he defendant. Once the plaintif and from Mohan Singh through stood established. The plea of , and devoid of particulars, there e Courts below have correctly respassory. A person in unla otect his illegal possession agai ji Ratansey Shah v. Union of I te of Haryana (1998) 3 CCC 4 e. e interim order dated 02.09.2 ssession except in due course of not confer ownership or tenancy e eviction without following the ere is no perversity, illegality, o The concurrent findings are we law. view of the foregoing discuss Singh is a trespasser in the su the true owner to protect unl trial Court and the First App

the parties and perusing the reco laintiff's own testimony admits ff admitted that Tejpal Singh h h a registered sale deed, the title f oral agreement to sell is vag eby lacking evidentiary value. y held that the possession of awful occupation cannot seek inst the lawful owner. The law l India (1994) 5 SCC 547 and O 404 (P&H) squarely applies to 2003 passed by this Court o f law. Such an order is procedura y rights upon the appellant. It o due legal process. or misreading of evidence by eit ell reasoned and based on corr sion, it is held that the plainti uit property. No injunction can lawful possession. The concurr pellate Court suffer from no le

- ord, had e of gue, an laid Om only al in only ther rect iff– n be rent

18.

Acc judgments and below are affirm

19.

Pen

October 27, 202 tripti

Wh

Wh cordingly, the present Regular decrees dated 18.01.1997 and med. nding application(s), if any, also

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

Second Appeal is dismissed. T

28.10.1999 passed by the Cou stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o.

-