Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dewaki And Ors. vs Dayawanti And Ors. on 23 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2006)144PLR132, AIR 2007 (DOC) 266 (P. & H.), 2007 (4) AKAR (NOC) 596 (P.&H.) = 2006 (3) CIVIL COURT CASES 615
Author: Viney Mittal
Bench: Viney Mittal
JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J.
1. The legal representatives of the original plaintiffs are in appeal.
2. A suit for declaration and for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff claiming that he had become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession.
3. A suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial Court. However, on an appeal field by the defendants, the learned First Appellate court found that the plaintiff had not been able to prove his adverse possession over the suit property. Consequently, the appeal of the defendants was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
4. In view of the law laid down in Bhim Singh and Ors. v. Zile Singh and Ors. R.S.A. No. 2717 of 2004, decided on March 3, 2006, the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of ownership on the basis of his adverse possession cannot be held to be legally maintainable. Consequently, the plaintiff-appellants cannot be heard to claim that they had any right in the property.
5. Faced with the aforesaid difficulty, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellants states that possession of the plaintiff-appellants be protected against forcible dispossession.
6. The learned First Appellate Court has itself observed that the plaintiffs were not entitled to seek any protection of the possession against true owners. Besides aforesaid fact, it may be noticed that the plaintiffs had filed the suit seeking declaration of their title as owners. Once they had failed in the declaration and the suit filed by them is held as not maintainable, then no relief can be granted in their favour.
7. It is also apparent that the learned First Appellate Court had decided the appeal against the plaintiff-appellants on November 25, 2002. For a period of 3-1/2 years, there has been no injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. In these circumstances, it is apparent that there is no justification to issue any injunction at this stage. In any case, when the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not even legally maintainable then no relief can be granted by this Court.
8. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present Appeal.
Dismissed.