SURTA RAM Vs. FAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgments dated 2.8.2001 and 19.2.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), and the Additional District Judge, Yamunanagar, respectively, vide which the suit filed by the appellant and his two brothers Jiwan Ram and Baru Ram, for grant of permanent injunction against the defendant-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was dismissed.

(2.) THE defendant-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were allotted three plots measuring 3 Marlas each out of Khasra No. 47/6 by the Gram Panchayat by way of gift for construction of houses, but they failed to take possession thereof as the land was in possession of forceful persons, i.e., the plaintiffs. When the said defendants tried to take possession of the land allotted to them, the appellant and his two brothers Jiwan Ram and Baru Ram filed the present suit and sought permanent injunction against the defendant-respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The plea taken by the plaintiffs was that they were owners in possession of the suit property since the time of their fore-fathers and the property in dispute was being used by them for tethering cattle and storage of fodder etc. The suit was contested by defendants Fakkar, Shabir and Wasir, who, inter alia, pleaded that they were allotted plots comprised in Khasra Nos. 47/1, 47/2, 47/3, measuring 3 Marlas each vide registered allotment certificate on 23.6.1983. The ownership and possession of the plaintiffs was denied by them. After hearing the evidence adduced on record, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 2.8.2001. The judgment of the trial Judge was challenged in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Yamunanagar, by Surta Ram. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 19.2.2002. Now Surta Ram plaintiff has filed the present regular second appeal, wherein challenge has been laid to the judgments passed by both the Courts below.

(3.) IT has come on record that in order to prove their ownership and possession of the suit land, the plaintiffs stepped into the witness-box and tendered the site plan (Mark 'A') in evidence. In their statements they took up the plea that they were in possession of the suit and since the time of their fore- fathers and also that they used to tether cattle thereon and store fodder etc. No documentary evidence to prove their ownership and possession has been adduced on record by them. On the other hand, in order to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiffs, the defendants have examined Panch Ram Numberdar (D.W.4) and tendered in evidence the allotment letters (Exhibits D1 to D3), Jamabandi (Exhibit D4), Khasra Girdawari (D5) and copy of the Akshajra (Ex.D6), besides their own evidence. In the cross-examination it has been admitted by Surta Ram plaintiff that the landless villagers were allotted Baras by the State Government and his son was also allotted a Bara. He did not have any knowledge about the Khasra number of the disputed property. It has further been admitted by him that the plaintiffs had no documents qua their title or ownership of the suit property. The version of the plaintiffs is not supported by any substantive and cogent documentary evidence whereas the defendants have adduced documentary evidence in the shape of allotment letters etc. The land was allotted to the defendants by the State Government vide sale letters, which were duly attested by Panch Ram Numberdar and bear the seal of the Sub Registrar, Sadhaura. Panch Ram Numberdar appeared as a witness as D.W.4 and stated that the property in dispute was allotted to the defendants vide allotment letters issued by the Government and he had affixed his thumb impression on the letters as attesting witness. The plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their ownership and possession over the suit property since the time of their fore-fathers. The authority Prataprai N. Kothari v. John Braganza, 1999(2) PLJ 73 : 1999(3) RCR(Civil) 119 (SC) relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, is not relevant to the facts of the present case. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law that a person who has been in long continuous possession can protect his possession by seeking injunction against any person in the world other than the true owner and also to the effect that even the true owner of the property can get back the possession only by resorting to due process of law. In the present case the plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership as well as possession by leading any cogent evidence. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the well-reasoned judgments passed by both the Courts below. It is a concurrent finding of fact which cannot be interfered in the present appeal. Moreover, no substantive question of law arises for determination by this Court. Consequently, there is no merit in the present appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.