TEJI Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad (1st Appellate Court) dated 10th October, 1997, wherein the appeal of the present appellate was dismissed without any orders as to costs. The grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellants were the true owners and as such decree of injunction could not be passed against them in regard to the property in question. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Premji Ratansey Shah and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , J. T. 1994 Volume-5 (SC) P. 547. He further submits that the decision of the learned Court below is contrary to the evidence on record.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at some length. I am afraid there is no merit in either of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. A suit for injunction was filed by Municipal Committee directing the defendants in the suit to hand over the possession of the shops in question. The Municipal Committee had constructed six shops in the open space of the land adjacent to the cattle pond. The proposal to raise construction was approved by the DC and the shops were constructed as back as on August 4, 1986. The documentary evidence was produced on record to show that the entire area including the cattle pond was in the ownership of the Committee. Though, subsequently it was changed in the name of Patti Dharam. Sufficient evidence has been placed on record to show that shops were constructed by the Committee. Payment was made to the contractor and also that the persons were inducted in the shops in furtherance to the public auction. All records reflect the position of the plaintiff Municipal Committee which remained unrefuted. Upon framing issues, the learned trial Court upon proper appreciation of the evidence, passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff and directed the defendants to hand over the possession as they were the unauthorised occupants having been inducted by municipal Committee. The judgment and decree dated 23. 11. 1992 was assailed in appeal which was dismissed by the learned Ist Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 10. 10. 1997. The Ist Appellate Court held that trial Court had rightly concluded that the said shops had been constructed by the respondent Committee and after receiving the grant from the Government. Relying upon Ex. P-4 to P10 and P-11 to P-15, the learned Ist Appellate Court decided all the issues against the appellant and affirmed the decree in its entirety there is concurrent findings of facts. It is on proper appreciation of evidence which can neither be termed as perverse nor contrary to the documentary evidence on record. In that event, this Court would hardly be justified in disturbing the concurrect findings of facts. In this regard, reference can be made to J. T. 1990 (3) Rajender Kumar v. Jamna Das Kotewala, P. 197.

(3.) Even on merits the contention of the appellant is entirely ill-founded. There is overwhelming evidence on records that the defendants were inducted into the shops by the Committee. Having been inducted by the Committee, they cannot claim a right adverse to the Committee because the shops still continued to be in the name and possession of the plaintiff Committee. The mere fact that the adjacent cattle pond has been entered in the ownership of shamlat patti would not effect the status of the shops unless such a dispute is determined by pronouncement of a Court of competent jurisdiction. In a more recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India in the case of 'walter Louil Franklin through LRs v. George Singh through LRs, 1997 (2) Recent Civil Reports P. 41, has held that injunction could be granted even against the true owner. The Committee has taken recourse to the due process of law and no fault can be found with the judgments of the Courts below.