Fakir Singh v. Munshi Singh Deceased Th Lrs

IN T

Fakir Singh

Munshi Singh (D

CORAM: HO

Present: Mr

for

Mr

for

Mr

for

MANDEEP PA

1.

Pre assailing the co dismissing the s

2.

Bri the owner in po plaint, purchase the death of Ra plaintiff along w uncle Munshi S THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ

AT CHANDIG

RS

Re

Pro

VERSUS Deceased) Through LRs. ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. K.K. Garg, Advocate the appellant. r. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate respondents No.1(a) to (d). ne for respondent No.2. r. Akash Vashisth, Advocate respondent No.3. ANNU, J esent regular second appeal has b orrectness of concurrent finding suit for permanent injunction. ief facts of the present case are ossession of property No.728, a ed by Ram Singh, who is father am Singh, the suit property dev with his family used to reside Singh i.e defendant No.1, to l

JAB AND HARYANA GARH SA-1470-2019 (O&M) served On: 07.08.2025 onounced On:13.08.2025

.....Appellant

.....Respondents DEEP PANNU been filed by the appellant/plain gs of learned Courts below wh that plaintiff alleges himself to as detailed in the head note of r of plaintiff. It is alleged that a volved upon the plaintiff but si in Gurgaon, he has asked his r look after the suit property. N

ntiff hile o be after nce real ow,

defendants No.1 They have no co

3.

In a plaintiff has no plaintiff-Ram Si sale certificate residing in the s Dhani, Kirs Roa agreement to se suit property. De the prospective construction ov property. On the denied the claim

4.

observed in par was the owner i his favour. Ther

5.

On defendant No.3 evidence count injunction again

6.

Fee an appeal was p 1 & 2, have started claiming the oncern with the ownership and p a joint statement filed by defend o concern and right over the su ingh and defendant No.1, are re was issued in the name of pla suit property for the last many y ad and he has alienated his shar ell dated 18.08.2008. The defend efendant No.3 by filing a counte vendee of the suit property and ver the suit property and plain e other hand, the plaintiff by fil m of defendant No.3. arned trial Court while dismis ra No.11 of the judgment that p in possession of suit property by refore, he is not entitled for the re n the issue regarding maintain , learned trial Court has held t er claimant/defendant No.3, h nst the plaintiff. eling aggrieved by the above-sa preferred filed by plaintiff and ot

ir ownership over the suit prope possession of the suit property. dants No.1 to 3, it is alleged that uit property. In fact, father of eal brothers. Being Karta of fam aintiff's father. Defendant No.1 years. Defendant No.2 is residing re in favour of defendant No.3 v dant No.3 is in possession over er-claim took up the stand that h had spent 2-3 lakhs and had rai ntiff has no concern with the s ling reply to the counter-claim ssing the suit of the plaintiff h plaintiff has failed to prove that y adducing any cogent evidence elief of injunction. nability of the counter claim that in the absence of any cog e is not entitled to the relief aid order of the learned trial Co ther Civil Appeal (cross-objectio

erty. mily, , is g in vide e is ised suit has had t he e in of gent f of urt, ons)

by defendant N trial Court and the other Civil a

7.

dispute the findi property and a r However, both the title of the su argued that the modified so far property. He fur not to be seen. L argued that both plaintiff for per owner of the pro not require any i Findings

8.

conceded that h below insofar a dismissal of the submits that the ownership of th No.3. Learned Appellate Court ha dismissed both the appeals, one appeal (cross-objections) filed by arned counsel for the appellant/p ings of learned Courts below reg relief of permanent injunction h the learned Courts below have uit property without there being judgment and decree passed by r as these relate to the finding rther submitted that in a suit fo Learned counsel for respondents h the learned Courts below hav rmanent injunction and has right operty in dispute and the judgme interference. arned counsel for the appella he does not dispute the concurr s they relate to possession of th e suit for permanent injunction e learned Courts below ought no e parties over the disputed prope

as affirmed the findings of learn e filed by plaintiff-Fakir Singh a y defendant No.3. plaintiff has argued that he does garding the possession over the s having being denied to the plaint erred in its findings with regard any issue of ownership. He furt y both the learned Courts below gs returned on the title of the s or permanent injunction, the title s No.1 and 3 on the other hand ve rightly dismissed the suit of tly held that the plaintiff is not ents of the learned Courts below ant/plaintiff, at the outset, fa rent findings of the learned Cou he suit property and the consequ based on possession. However, ot to have recorded findings on erty, as the present lis was a sim

ned and not suit tiff. d to ther w be suit e is has w do irly urts uent , he

suit for permane adjudicated.

9.

satisfied if the im the findings of with the clarific determined unle

10.

Thi counsel for the

(2008) 4 SCC 5 based on posses specifically plea possession and t

11.

In ownership, and concurrent findi appreciation of the appellant h recorded on the were beyond th purposes. MODIFICATIO

12.

In judgment and de ent injunction in which title was arned counsel further stated tha mpugned judgment and decree is the learned Courts below regar cation that in a suit for permanen ess the same is directly in issue. is Court finds merit in the sub e appellant/plaintiff. In Anathu 594, the Hon'ble Supreme Cour ssion, the question of title does aded and made an issue. The C the right of the plaintiff to protec the present case, there was no the relief sought was confined ings of the learned Courts below evidence and calls for no interfe has also not challenged them ownership/title of the property, i he scope of the suit and are, the ON OF JUDGMENT AND DEC view of the above discussion ecree of the learned Courts below

s neither in issue nor required to at the appellant/plaintiff would s modified to the limited extent t rding the title be treated as non nt injunction, ownership is not to bmission as made by the learn ula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Red rt held that in a suit for injunct not arise for determination unl Court is required only to ascert ct such possession. o specific issue framed regard d to protection of possession. T w on possession are based on pro erence by this Court, particularly on merits. However, the findi in absence of an issue to that eff erefore, liable to be ignored for CREE n and settled law, the impugn w are modified to the extent that

o be be that est, o be ned ddy tion less tain ding The oper y as ngs fect, r all ned :

i)

ii) CONCLUSION

13.

Acc decree, as modi and remains ope

Pen

August 13, 2025 tripti

Whethe

Whethe The findings relating to poss consequential injunction r dispossessing the plaintiff upheld. the findings recorded on the are set aside, being beyond shall have no bearing on the proceedings regarding owner N cordingly, the appeal is partly fied, shall reflect that the questi en for determination in appropria nding application(s), if any, also

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

session of the suit property and restraining the defendants fr except in due course of law, title/ownership of the suit prope the scope of the present suit, a e rights of the parties in any fut rship. allowed in the above terms. T on of title has not been adjudica ate proceedings. stand disposed off. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

rom are erty and ture The