Smt. Laxmi and Others Vs. Khem Chand and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1064368
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-09-2013
AppellantSmt. Laxmi and Others
RespondentKhem Chand and Others
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh regular second appeal no.1342 of 2013 (o&m) date of decision : may 09, 2013 smt. laxmi and others .....appellants. versus khem chand and others .....respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice t.p.s.mann present : mr.ajay kumar kansal, advocate. t.p.s.mann, j. (oral) suit filed by the appellants for declaration that they were owners of the suit property, was dismissed by the trial court. however, relief of permanent injunction was granted to them as they were found in possession of the suit property. aggrieved of the denial of relief of declaration, the appellants filed the firs.appeal but remained unsuccessful. not they have knocked the doors of this court by filing the present second appeal under section 100 of the code of civil procedure. the appellants were non-suited by the courts below qua relief of declaration as in order to show that they were owners of the suit property, they asserted that they had become owners by way of advers.possession. for the reason that the plea of advers.possession could only be taken by the defendant and not by the plaintiff, the courts below have denied the relief of declaration to them. regular second appeal no.1342 of 2013 (o&m) -2- it cannot be disputed that the plea of advers.possession is only available to the defendant as a shield and cannot be used by the plaintiff as a sword. it has been so held in the case of gurcharan singh and others versus mukhtiar singh and others.2010 (4) civil court cases 302 (p&h).in such a situation, the appellants, who are plaintiffs in the suit have been rightly barred from taking the plea of advers.possession. resultantly, this court finds no ground to interfere in the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below. the appeal is without any merit and, accordingly, dismissed. however, it would be open to the plaintiffs/appellants to take the plea of advers.possession in the event of the defendants filing any suit against them. ( t.p.s.mann ) may 09, 2013 judge satish
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1342 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 09, 2013 Smt.

Laxmi and others .....Appellants.

VERSUS Khem Chand and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present : Mr.Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate.

T.P.S.MANN, J.

(Oral) Suit filed by the appellants for declaration that they were owners of the suit property, was dismissed by the trial Court.

However, relief of permanent injunction was granted to them as they were found in possession of the suit property.

Aggrieved of the denial of relief of declaration, the appellants filed the fiRs.appeal but remained unsuccessful.

not they have knocked the doors of this Court by filing the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The appellants were non-suited by the Courts below qua relief of declaration as in order to show that they were owners of the suit property, they asserted that they had become owners by way of adveRs.possession.

For the reason that the plea of adveRs.possession could only be taken by the defendant and not by the plaintiff, the Courts below have denied the relief of declaration to them.

Regular Second Appeal No.1342 of 2013 (O&M) -2- It cannot be disputed that the plea of adveRs.possession is only available to the defendant as a shield and cannot be used by the plaintiff as a sword.

It has been so held in the case of Gurcharan Singh and others versus Mukhtiar Singh and otheRs.2010 (4) Civil Court Cases 302 (P&H).In such a situation, the appellants, who are plaintiffs in the suit have been rightly barred from taking the plea of adveRs.possession.

Resultantly, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below.

The appeal is without any merit and, accordingly, dismissed.

However, it would be open to the plaintiffs/appellants to take the plea of adveRs.possession in the event of the defendants filing any suit against them.

( T.P.S.MANN ) May 09, 2013 JUDGE satish