The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in case the plaintiff in a suit for possession and mandatory injunction fails to satisfy the court regarding their right, title or interest in the suit land they cannot seek possession of the same or seek a mandatory injunction against the defendant-respondents qua the same.
The bench comprising Justice Alka Sarin further added weakness in the case set-up by the defendant-respondents will not automatically strengthen the case as set-up by the plaintiff-appellants.
The court was dealing with a regular second appeal on behalf of a Temple and its President against the order of lower appellate court setting aside the relief granted to them by the civil court.
It was the case of the plaintiff-appellant that he is the owner of the property which is illegally encroached by the defendant-respondents in 2012. In the suit the possession of the suit property, the plaintiff-appellants sought the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendant-respondents to demolish the construction undertook by them after illegal encroachment.
The court in the instant case observed that the counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has failed to satisfy the court regarding how the plaintiff-appellant No.2 can claim to represent any Committee so as to file the suit and the present appeal for the plaintiff-appellant No.1.
Court further noted that there is nothing on the record to prove the existence of any such Committee which can sue or be sued in its name. Therefore, when the plaintiff-appellants have failed to satisfy their right, title or interest in the suit land they cannot seek possession of the same or a mandatory injunction for that matter.
It also noted that just because the defendant-respondents have been able to show their ownership over land measuring 75 sq. yards does not mean that the plaintiff/appellants are owners of the remaining land beyond this 75 sq. yards.
"Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has also not been able to show how the suit was maintainable in 2014 when the witnesses of the plaintiff/appellants have themselves stated that the defendant-respondents are in possession of the suit land for the last more than 25 years."
In view of the above, the court found no illegality and infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court and dismissed the instant regular second appeal accordingly.
Case Title: Murti Shri Vishnu Avtar Baba Ram Dev & Anr. Versus Baljit Singh & Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 222