Permanent Injunction – Possession Established; Appeal Dismissed – No Substantial Question of Law.

Headnote:

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal (RSA-4683-2000) filed by Mohinder Singh against concurrent findings of the lower courts that had granted a decree of permanent injunction in favor of Kulwant Singh. The Court held that the plaintiff had successfully established possession over the disputed 32 marla property, and the defendant failed to prove either ownership or possession. The plea that both parties were co-sharers was rejected as the defendant had never pleaded joint ownership. The Court also observed that the defendant’s non-appearance in the witness box warranted an adverse inference. Finding no substantial question of law, the appeal was dismissed.

Background:

• Appellant: Mohinder Singh (Defendant before Trial Court)

• Respondent: Kulwant Singh (Plaintiff before Trial Court)

• Property: 32 marla land marked as ABCD in site plan annexed with the plaint

• Claim: Plaintiff sought permanent injunction against interference by defendant

• Trial Court Decree: 09.12.1994 – Permanent injunction granted in favor of plaintiff

• First Appellate Court: 09.10.2000 – Decree affirmed

• Second Appeal Filed: Against concurrent findings of both lower courts

Appellant’s Contentions:

1. In the absence of proof of partition, both parties were co-sharers; one co-sharer cannot restrain another from using joint property.
2. The lower courts erred in granting injunction without deciding ownership.
3. Relied on Sant Ram Nagina Ram v. Daya Ram Nagina Ram, AIR 1961 Punjab 528, to argue that injunction between co-sharers is impermissible.

Respondent’s Contentions:

1. The property had been partitioned in the family; the suit property fell to the share of the plaintiff’s father, Sohan Singh.
2. The plaintiff continued in possession after his father’s death.
3. The defendant never claimed the property as joint but as belonging partly to himself and partly to his sister Naranjan Kaur.
4. The defendant failed to appear as a witness, weakening his case.

Court’s Findings:

1. The family partition was admitted even by the defendant’s witnesses.
2. Naranjan Kaur, claimed as co-owner, was residing in another village since 1947 and was not in possession of the property.
3. The defendant failed to produce credible evidence of ownership or possession and did not enter the witness box.
4. The testimony of DW2 (defendant’s son) lacked personal knowledge and was inconsistent.
5. The plea of joint ownership was never taken by the defendant; therefore, the rule against injunction between co-sharers was inapplicable.
6. Adverse inference rightly drawn against the defendant for non-appearance, in line with Prem Sagar v. Darbari Lal (2000-2 PLR 132) and Sardari Lal v. Kartar Singh (1998-2 PLR 485).

Decision:

• No substantial question of law arose for consideration.

• Concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld.

• Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit.

• Permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff maintained.

Legal Provisions and Authorities Discussed:

• Sant Ram Nagina Ram v. Daya Ram Nagina Ram, AIR 1961 Punjab 528

• Prem Sagar v. Darbari Lal, (2000-2) PLR 132

• Sardari Lal v. Kartar Singh and others, (1998-2) PLR 485

• Principle of adverse inference under Evidence Act, Section 114(g)

• Concept of injunction between co-sharers and effect of admitted partition

Final Outcome:

Regular Second Appeal dismissed.

Permanent injunction in favor of Kulwant Singh upheld.

Case Title:

Mohinder Singh v. Kulwant Singh

Case Number: RSA-4683-2000 (O&M)

Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta