No Mandatory Injunction Where Failure to Prove Ownership and Possession: Punjab and Haryana High Court

In a recent judgement, Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appellants' second appeal, reaffirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The appellants had filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction, alleging encroachment by the respondents and seeking removal of a gate. The court ruled against the appellants, citing the lack of evidence to prove ownership and possession of the disputed property.

The appellants, Sawinder Singh and others, claimed that their father, Harbans Singh, was the owner of a house purchased through an agreement dated August 25, 1977. Following Harbans Singh’s death, the appellants alleged that they continued to reside in the house. They filed a civil suit in 2016 after the respondents, Sukha Singh and others, purportedly demolished a wall of their house and installed a gate, violating an existing court order. However, the original suit was withdrawn, and a fresh suit for mandatory injunction was filed.

The respondents denied the appellants' ownership claims, asserting that the property in question was a public street, and the appellants had no locus standi to file the suit.

The core legal issue was whether the appellants were entitled to mandatory and permanent injunction based on their claim of ownership and possession of the disputed property. Specifically, the following points were at issue:

Did the appellants sufficiently prove their ownership and possession of the property?

Was there a substantial question of law that warranted the appellate court's intervention?

The trial court dismissed the suit on December 21, 2018, finding that the appellants had failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove their ownership or possession of the suit property. The first appellate court upheld this decision on March 27, 2019, reiterating that the appellants relied solely on an unverified Urdu document marked as "Mark-A" and an unproven site plan, both of which were insufficient to establish ownership or possession.

Justice Alka Sarin, in her detailed judgment, noted that both lower courts had correctly concluded that "there was not an iota of evidence on the record" proving the appellants’ ownership or possession of the disputed property. The Urdu document marked as "Mark-A" lacked evidentiary value, and the site plan submitted by the appellants was neither authenticated nor sufficient to establish possession.

The court emphasized that in cases of mandatory injunction, the burden of proof lies heavily on the plaintiffs to demonstrate clear ownership and possession. In this case, the appellants' failure to produce credible evidence undermined their claim.

Justice Sarin dismissed the second appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The findings of both the trial court and the first appellate court were based on a thorough appreciation of the evidence, and there was no legal error that warranted interference. The court observed:

"In view of the above, no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present case which requires determination by this Court. The appeal, being devoid of any merits, is accordingly dismissed."

The Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirmed the principle that a suit for mandatory injunction cannot succeed without clear proof of ownership and possession. In this case, the appellants' inability to provide credible evidence led to the dismissal of their suit at both the trial and appellate stages, and the second appeal was similarly found to lack merit.

Date of Decision: October 14, 2024