IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 133 Youth Social Welfare Society Paramjit Singh @ Pammi CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-6592-C-2025 on record Evidence Affidavit of PW2 dated cross-examination of PW2 dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure A5) and Evidence Affidavit of PW4 dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure A6) and cross of PW4 dated 12.04.2016 and 09.05.2016 (Annexure A7) in CIS No.3903/2013 which is supported by affidavit of the applicant, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and MAIN CASE against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the appellant for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in interfering in the peaceful possession IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Youth Social Welfare Society Vs. Paramjit Singh @ Pammi & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Ishaan, Advocate for the appellant. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. 2025 This is an application under Section 151 CPC for placing Evidence Affidavit of PW2 dated 08.05.2015 examination of PW2 dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure A5) and Evidence Affidavit of PW4 dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure A6) and cross of PW4 dated 12.04.2016 and 09.05.2016 (Annexure A7) in CIS 2013. After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of the applicant, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and Annexure A4, A5, A6 and A7 are taken on record. Present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the appellant for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in interfering in the peaceful possession IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-709-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 26.05.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA This is an application under Section 151 CPC for placing 08.05.2015 (Annexure A4) and examination of PW2 dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure A5) and Evidence Affidavit of PW4 dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure A6) and cross-examination of PW4 dated 12.04.2016 and 09.05.2016 (Annexure A7) in CIS through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of the applicant, the same is allowed subject Annexure A4, A5, A6 and A7 are taken on record. second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the appellant for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in interfering in the peaceful possession of the appellant 10 through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of the applicant, the same is allowed subject second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the appellant for permanent injunction restraining the appellant SUNENA 2025.05.28 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document and from raising any type of construction over the restraining them from changing nature of suit property and alienating the same, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. 2. appellant that the Courts below were in error in defendant No.4 i.e. Municipal Council, Rajpura had admitted in their written statement as well as their testimony as DW4/A that the suit property measuring 500 squar by the Municipal Council, Rajpura to achieve the objectives of the Society. It is submitted that it has also been admitted by the Municipal Council, Rajpura that in furtherance of the allotment, appellant possession of the above duly placed on record Allotment Letter No. 3. have been passed on the incorrect reading of the evidence of PW4 Kumar who had categorically stated that the suit property falls in Lal Lakir. It is submitted that the Courts below have made erroneous observation regard to testimony of PW notin possession over the property of the Society. A bare perusal of the testimony of Sushil Kumar PW plaintiffs are in possession of the reliance on the testimony of PW and from raising any type of construction over the restraining them from changing nature of suit property and alienating the same, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. It is inter alia submitted by learned c appellant that the Courts below were in error in defendant No.4 i.e. Municipal Council, Rajpura had admitted in their written statement as well as their testimony as DW4/A that the suit property measuring 500 square yards was allotted to the appellant by the Municipal Council, Rajpura to achieve the objectives of the Society. It is submitted that it has also been admitted by the Municipal Council, Rajpura that in furtherance of the allotment, appellant possession of the above-mentioned property. duly placed on record Allotment Letter No.4370/78/MC dated 21.08.1978 It is further submitted thatthe impugned judgments have been passed on the incorrect reading of the evidence of PW4 Kumar who had categorically stated that the suit property falls in Lal Lakir. It is submitted that the Courts below have made erroneous observation testimony of PW-4Sushil Kumar to conclude that p possession over the property of the Society. A bare perusal of the testimony of Sushil Kumar PW-4, reveals that he laintiffs are in possession of the property of the Society. The erroneous reliance on the testimony of PW-4 Sushil Kumar by both courts is contrary and from raising any type of construction over the suit plot and further restraining them from changing nature of suit property and alienating the same, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Courts below were in error in failing to appreciate that defendant No.4 i.e. Municipal Council, Rajpura had admitted in their written statement as well as their testimony as DW4/A that the suit e yards was allotted to the appellant-Society by the Municipal Council, Rajpura to achieve the objectives of the Society. It is submitted that it has also been admitted by the Municipal Council, Rajpura that in furtherance of the allotment, appellant-plaintiff is in mentioned property. Moreover, the appellant had 4370/78/MC dated 21.08.1978. submitted thatthe impugned judgments have been passed on the incorrect reading of the evidence of PW4-Sushil Kumar who had categorically stated that the suit property falls in Lal Lakir. It is submitted that the Courts below have made erroneous observation with Sushil Kumar to conclude that plaintiffs are possession over the property of the Society. A bare perusal of the 4, reveals that he has admitted that the property of the Society. The erroneous 4 Sushil Kumar by both courts is contrary 10 plot and further restraining them from changing nature of suit property and alienating the ounsel for the that defendant No.4 i.e. Municipal Council, Rajpura had admitted in their written statement as well as their testimony as DW4/A that the suit Society by the Municipal Council, Rajpura to achieve the objectives of the Society. It is submitted that it has also been admitted by the Municipal Council, tiff is in appellant had submitted thatthe impugned judgments Sushil Kumar who had categorically stated that the suit property falls in Lal Lakir. It with are possession over the property of the Society. A bare perusal of the has admitted that the property of the Society. The erroneous 4 Sushil Kumar by both courts is contrary SUNENA 2025.05.28 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document to the principles of equity and justice and has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 4. dated 20.11.2024 shall establish that the Learned Appellate Court erred in dismissing the Application moved by the Appellants for additional evidence in the form of complete Constitution of the Society. The Application for additional evidence was dismissed in contravention of the established position of law. The admission of entire piece of Constitution as evidence is relevant in light of the settled position of law that the admissibility of additional evidence does not depen hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. It is submitted that the true test, therefore is, whether the court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evid is submittedt cloud over eligibility of Manpreet Singh to be elected as the President of the Society. The Constitution clearly states that to be eligible to conte the President the condition of Additionally, a bare perusal shall establish that Manpreet Singh satisfies all to the principles of equity and justice and has resulted in miscarriage of It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the Order dated 20.11.2024 shall establish that the Learned Appellate Court erred in dismissing the Application moved by the Appellants for additional evidence in the form of complete Constitution of the Society. The Application for dditional evidence was dismissed in contravention of the established position of law. The admission of entire piece of Constitution as evidence is relevant in light of the settled position of law that the admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to be enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. It is submitted that the true test, therefore is, whether the court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evid is submittedthat a perusal of the Constitution of the Society shall clear the cloud over eligibility of Manpreet Singh to be elected as the President of the Society. The Constitution clearly states that to be eligible to conte the President the condition of ‘6 months membership' is clearly laid dow Additionally, a bare perusal shall establish that Manpreet Singh satisfies all to the principles of equity and justice and has resulted in miscarriage of hat a bare perusal of the Order dated 20.11.2024 shall establish that the Learned Appellate Court erred in dismissing the Application moved by the Appellants for additional evidence in the form of complete Constitution of the Society. The Application for dditional evidence was dismissed in contravention of the established position of law. The admission of entire piece of Constitution as evidence is relevant in light of the settled position of law that the admissibility of d upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to be enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. It is submitted that the true test, therefore is, whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. It hat a perusal of the Constitution of the Society shall clear the cloud over eligibility of Manpreet Singh to be elected as the President of the Society. The Constitution clearly states that to be eligible to contest as months membership' is clearly laid down. Additionally, a bare perusal shall establish that Manpreet Singh satisfies all 10 to the principles of equity and justice and has resulted in miscarriage of hat a bare perusal of the Order dated 20.11.2024 shall establish that the Learned Appellate Court erred in dismissing the Application moved by the Appellants for additional evidence in the form of complete Constitution of the Society. The Application for dditional evidence was dismissed in contravention of the established position of law. The admission of entire piece of Constitution as evidence is relevant in light of the settled position of law that the admissibility of d upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to be enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without It hat a perusal of the Constitution of the Society shall clear the cloud over eligibility of Manpreet Singh to be elected as the President of st as . Additionally, a bare perusal shall establish that Manpreet Singh satisfies all SUNENA 2025.05.28 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the criteria for being elected as the President of the to highlight tha possession of the land has a perfectly good title against the entire world except the rightful owner. In light of the above, it is submitted that the Learned Trial Court and the Learned Appellate Court concluding that the injunction for lack of possession over the concerned 5. 6. perused the case file in great detail. 7. Welfare Society (regd) Rajpura was founded on 27.02.19 Verma who remained President from 27.02.1977 to 31.12.1985 to Municipal Council for allotment of land measuring 500 square yards in name of Youth Social Welfare Society and land was allotted vide resolution No.182 of 28.07.1978 28.08.1978. Then Kishan Lal approached to Zimidara Welfare Society for allotment of 600 square yards in name of Youth Social Welfare Society and same was registered vide No.797 dated 28.09.1993. In this manner, total land allotted to the plaintiff alleged that the defendants are trying to grab this land. It was further stated that Plaintiff No.1 is elected President. the criteria for being elected as the President of the to highlight that it is the settled position of law that the person in possession of the land has a perfectly good title against the entire world except the rightful owner. In light of the above, it is submitted that the Learned Trial Court and the Learned Appellate Court that the appellants/plaintiffs are unqualified to seek the relief of injunction for lack of possession over the concerned No other argument is made on behalf of the I have heard learned counsel for the perused the case file in great detail. It was pleaded in the plaint that Welfare Society (regd) Rajpura was founded on 27.02.19 remained President from 27.02.1977 to 31.12.1985 to Municipal Council for allotment of land measuring 500 square yards in name of Youth Social Welfare Society and land was allotted vide resolution No.182 of 28.07.1978 for 100 annually. The possession was taken on . Then Kishan Lal approached to Zimidara Welfare Society for allotment of 600 square yards in name of Youth Social Welfare Society and same was registered vide No.797 dated 28.09.1993. In this manner, total allotted to the plaintiff comes to be 1100 s alleged that the defendants are trying to grab this land. It was further stated Plaintiff No.1 is elected President. Page 4 of 10 the criteria for being elected as the President of the Society. It is pertinent t it is the settled position of law that the person in possession of the land has a perfectly good title against the entire world except the rightful owner. In light of the above, it is submitted that the Learned Trial Court and the Learned Appellate Court erred in laintiffs are unqualified to seek the relief of injunction for lack of possession over the concerned property. No other argument is made on behalf of the appellant. rned counsel for the appellant and in the plaint that the plaintiff/Youth Social Welfare Society (regd) Rajpura was founded on 27.02.1977 by Krishan Lal remained President from 27.02.1977 to 31.12.1985. He applied to Municipal Council for allotment of land measuring 500 square yards in name of Youth Social Welfare Society and land was allotted vide resolution for 100 annually. The possession was taken on . Then Kishan Lal approached to Zimidara Welfare Society for allotment of 600 square yards in name of Youth Social Welfare Society and same was registered vide No.797 dated 28.09.1993. In this manner, total comes to be 1100 square yards. It was further alleged that the defendants are trying to grab this land. It was further stated 10 t is pertinent t it is the settled position of law that the person in possession of the land has a perfectly good title against the entire world except the rightful owner. In light of the above, it is submitted that the erred in laintiffs are unqualified to seek the relief of and Youth Social by Krishan Lal plied to Municipal Council for allotment of land measuring 500 square yards in name of Youth Social Welfare Society and land was allotted vide resolution for 100 annually. The possession was taken on . Then Kishan Lal approached to Zimidara Welfare Society for allotment of 600 square yards in name of Youth Social Welfare Society and same was registered vide No.797 dated 28.09.1993. In this manner, total It was further alleged that the defendants are trying to grab this land. It was further stated SUNENA 2025.05.28 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. and decrees suffer from no error as the plainti case. Firstly, the resolution dated 22.12.2012 where allegedly authority has been given to plaintiffs to file the suit signatures of plaintiff resolution does not bear signature of any member. The plaintiff has not produced on record original resolution to ascertain how many members authorised him to file present suit. P examination that to become President of Society, there is condition that only a member who has been continuously associated with Society for 10 years can be elected as President plaintiff, he replied that he d claims to be President should be aware of Moreover, it is settled possession over suit property admitted in cross 9. judgment and decree dated 21.10.2017 are as under: It is my considered view that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from no error as the plainti case. Firstly, the plaintiffs have produced on record Ex.P1 which is copy of resolution dated 22.12.2012 where allegedly authority has been given to to file the suit. However, a perusal of Ex.P1 shows that except f signatures of plaintiff no.1, who claims himself to be President, the resolution does not bear signature of any member. The plaintiff has not produced on record original resolution to ascertain how many members authorised him to file present suit. PW2 had admitted in his cross examination that to become President of Society, there is condition that only a member who has been continuously associated with Society for 10 years can be elected as President;and when this question was put to replied that he did not know. Needless to say, claims to be President should be aware of Moreover, it is settled law that in order to seek injunction, one has to prove possession over suit property. But PW4 who in cross-examination that possession is with defendants. Relevant findings returned by learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.10.2017 are as under: “Issue No.1 OPP The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiffs. It is the settled proposition of law that the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and prove his case. The present suit for injunction has It is my considered view that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from no error as the plaintiffs failed to establish their plaintiffs have produced on record Ex.P1 which is copy of resolution dated 22.12.2012 where allegedly authority has been given to perusal of Ex.P1 shows that except for , who claims himself to be President, the resolution does not bear signature of any member. The plaintiff has even not produced on record original resolution to ascertain how many members W2 had admitted in his cross- examination that to become President of Society, there is condition that only a member who has been continuously associated with Society for 10 and when this question was put to . Needless to say, plaintiff No.1 who claims to be President should be aware of the Rules and Regulations. law that in order to seek injunction, one has to prove PW4 who is one of the plaintiffshas that possession is with defendants. Relevant findings returned by learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.10.2017 are as under:- The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiffs. It is the settled proposition of law that the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and prove his case. The present suit for injunction has 10 It is my considered view that the impugned judgments ffs failed to establish their plaintiffs have produced on record Ex.P1 which is copy of resolution dated 22.12.2012 where allegedly authority has been given to r , who claims himself to be President, the even not produced on record original resolution to ascertain how many members - examination that to become President of Society, there is condition that only a member who has been continuously associated with Society for 10 and when this question was put to plaintiff No.1 who Rules and Regulations. law that in order to seek injunction, one has to prove plaintiffshas Relevant findings returned by learned trial Court vide The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiffs. It is the settled proposition of law that the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and prove his case. The present suit for injunction has SUNENA 2025.05.28 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document been filed by the plaintiff claiming themselves to be the offic bearers of Youth Social Welfare Society Registered alleging the property described in the headnote of the plaint is in their possession and defendants are trying to interfere in their possession. As the plaintiffs have filed the present suit claiming themselves to be authorized office bearer i.e. President, Vice President, Secretary, Ex-Chairman whereas the defendant No.1 & 2 have taken a specific objection that the plaintiffs have no concern with the Youth Social Welfare Society Registered. The onus was on the plaintiffs to prove that they are in fact the authorized office bearers. The plaintiffs have produced on record Ex.P1, which is copy of resolution dated 22.12.2012 wherein allegedly the authority has been given to the plaintiffs against the defendants. The perusal of this document Ex.Pl shows that except from the signatures of the plaintiff Manpreet, who claims himself to be the President, the resolution does not bear signatures of any member. The plaintiff has not produced on record the original res as to ascertain that how many members have authorized him to file the present suit. Although the plaintiff has placed on record Ex. P18, which is just one page of the constitution of the Youth Social Welfare Society, but the complete constitutio the Youth Social Welfare Society has not been produced or proved by the plaintiff. It was the duty of the plaintiff to prove on record the complete constitution of the registered society containing the rules and regulations for selection criteria to as to prove that they are infact the authorized office bearers of the society. The plaintiff has not proved on record the best been filed by the plaintiff claiming themselves to be the office bearers of Youth Social Welfare Society Registered alleging the headnote of the plaint is in their possession and defendants are trying to interfere in their possession. As the plaintiffs have filed the present suit claiming mselves to be authorized office bearer i.e. President, Vice Chairman whereas the defendant No.1 & 2 have taken a specific objection that the plaintiffs have no concern with the Youth Social Welfare Society Registered. The on the plaintiffs to prove that they are in fact the authorized office bearers. The plaintiffs have produced on record Ex.P1, which is copy of resolution dated 22.12.2012 wherein allegedly the authority has been given to the plaintiffs ts. The perusal of this document Ex.Pl shows that except from the signatures of the plaintiff Manpreet, who claims himself to be the President, the resolution does not bear signatures of any member. The plaintiff has not produced on record the original resolution so as to ascertain that how many members have authorized him to file the present suit. Although the plaintiff has placed on record Ex. P18, which is just one page of the constitution of the Youth Social Welfare Society, but the complete constitution of the Youth Social Welfare Society has not been produced or It was the duty of the plaintiff to prove on record the complete constitution of the registered society containing the rules and regulations for selection criteria to be elected as President so as to prove that they are infact the authorized office bearers of the society. The plaintiff has not proved on record the best 10 e bearers of Youth Social Welfare Society Registered alleging the headnote of the plaint is in their possession and defendants are trying to interfere in their possession. As the plaintiffs have filed the present suit claiming mselves to be authorized office bearer i.e. President, Vice Chairman whereas the defendant No.1 & 2 have taken a specific objection that the plaintiffs have no concern with the Youth Social Welfare Society Registered. The on the plaintiffs to prove that they are in fact the authorized office bearers. The plaintiffs have produced on record Ex.P1, which is copy of resolution dated 22.12.2012 wherein allegedly the authority has been given to the plaintiffs ts. The perusal of this document Ex.Pl shows that except from the signatures of the plaintiff Manpreet, who claims himself to be the President, the resolution does not bear signatures of any member. The olution so as to ascertain that how many members have authorized him to file the present suit. Although the plaintiff has placed on record Ex. P18, which is just one page of the constitution of the n of the Youth Social Welfare Society has not been produced or It was the duty of the plaintiff to prove on record the complete constitution of the registered society containing the rules and be elected as President so as to prove that they are infact the authorized office bearers of the society. The plaintiff has not proved on record the best SUNENA 2025.05.28 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fact regarding which the question was put to him, amounts to evidence i.e. It is settled law that as per Section which has been also mandate of illustration (g) of Evidence Act, which permit the Court to draw and adverse presumption against the party which does not produces the best evidence, to the effect that evidence which could be produced but is not produced would, if produced have been unfavourable to the person, who withholds it. The rule is if a man wrongfully withhold evidence, every presumption to his disadvantage consisted with the facts admitted or proved will be adopted Furthermore the witness of the plaintiff been examined as PW2, has admitted in his cross examination that to become the President of the society, there is a condition that only a member, who has been continuously associated with the society for ten years can be elected as whereas the plaintiff No.1 claims to be the President of Youth Welfare Society and has appeared as PW1 when confronted with the question that whether there is any condition for appointment of President, who has membership for at years, the witness has replied did not specifically deny. It is settled law that absence of specific denial by a witness, who is supposed to be aware of the fact regarding which the question was put to him, amounts to admission. The plaintiff No.1, who cla should be aware of rules and regulations for the appointment of President as he claims to be elected as President. Moreover, non-production of the constitution of Youth Welfare Society also goes on to prove that the plaintiff has withhe evidence i.e. It is settled law that as per Section which has been also mandate of illustration (g) of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, which permit the Court to draw and adverse presumption against the party which does not produces the best evidence, to the effect that evidence which could be produced but is not produced would, if produced have been favourable to the person, who withholds it. The rule is if a man wrongfully withhold evidence, every presumption to his disadvantage consisted with the facts admitted or proved will ness of the plaintiff Satish Kumar, who has been examined as PW2, has admitted in his cross examination that to become the President of the society, there is a condition that only a member, who has been continuously associated with the society for ten years can be elected as President No.1 claims to be the President of Youth Welfare Society and has appeared as PW1 when confronted with the question that whether there is any condition for appointment of President, who has membership for at-least ten that he does not know, but he did not specifically deny. It is settled law that absence of specific denial by a witness, who is supposed to be aware of the fact regarding which the question was put to him, amounts to admission. The plaintiff No.1, who claims to be President should be aware of rules and regulations for the appointment of President as he claims to be elected as President. Moreover, production of the constitution of Youth Welfare Society also goes on to prove that the plaintiff has withheld the 10 evidence i.e. It is settled law that as per Section which has been Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, which permit the Court to draw and adverse presumption against the party which does not produces the best evidence, to the effect that evidence which could be produced but is not produced would, if produced have been favourable to the person, who withholds it. The rule is if a man wrongfully withhold evidence, every presumption to his disadvantage consisted with the facts admitted or proved will Kumar, who has been examined as PW2, has admitted in his cross examination that to become the President of the society, there is a condition that only a member, who has been continuously associated President No.1 claims to be the President of Youth Welfare Society and has appeared as PW1 when confronted with the question that whether there is any condition for least ten that he does not know, but he did not specifically deny. It is settled law that absence of specific denial by a witness, who is supposed to be aware of the fact regarding which the question was put to him, amounts to ims to be President should be aware of rules and regulations for the appointment of President as he claims to be elected as President. Moreover, production of the constitution of Youth Welfare Society ld the SUNENA 2025.05.28 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10. Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2024 are as under: evidence from which it could have ascertained duly elected President of the Society. Moreover, it is settled law that in order to seek injunction, one has to prove the possession over the suit property, but PW4 Sushil Kumar, who is one of the plaintiff, in his cross examination, has admitted that the possession of the suit property is with the defendants. Hence, when the plaintiffs themselves have admitted that they are not in possession of the suit property, it does not lie in their injunction regarding the property of which they are not in possession.” Relevant findings returned by Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2024 are as under: “14. It is the basic principle of civil l stand on his own legs and plaintiff has to prove his own case by leading sufficient evidence and plaintiff cannot take advantage of weakness of case of defendants and in the case in hand, heavy duty was upon the appellants before t Court to prove their case by leading sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence, but perusal of entire oral as well as documentary evidence led by appellants before the learned Lower Court clearly prove the fact that appellants have miserably failed to prove their case before the learned Lower Court by leading cogent and convincing evidence and appellants failed to convince the Court regarding their title and possession and learned Lower Court properly appreciated the entire oral as well as documentary evidence and rightly held that appellants have produced on record Ex.P1 evidence from which it could have ascertained whether he is duly elected President of the Society. Moreover, it is settled law that in order to seek injunction, one has to prove the possession over the suit property, but PW4 one of the plaintiff, in his cross examination, has admitted that the possession of the suit property is with the defendants. Hence, when the plaintiffs themselves have admitted that they are not in possession of the suit property, it does not lie in their mouth to seek injunction regarding the property of which they are not in Relevant findings returned by the learned Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2024 are as under:- It is the basic principle of civil law that plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and plaintiff has to prove his own case by leading sufficient evidence and plaintiff cannot take advantage of weakness of case of defendants and in the case in hand, heavy duty was upon the appellants before the learned Lower Court to prove their case by leading sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence, but perusal of entire oral as well as documentary evidence led by appellants before the learned Lower Court clearly prove the fact that appellants have iserably failed to prove their case before the learned Lower Court by leading cogent and convincing evidence and appellants failed to convince the Court regarding their title and possession and learned Lower Court properly appreciated the ll as documentary evidence and rightly held ts have produced on record Ex.P1, which is a copy 10 hether he is Moreover, it is settled law that in order to seek injunction, one has to prove the possession over the suit property, but PW4 one of the plaintiff, in his cross examination, has admitted that the possession of the suit property is with the defendants. Hence, when the plaintiffs themselves have admitted that they are not in possession of mouth to seek injunction regarding the property of which they are not in learned Lower aw that plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and plaintiff has to prove his own case by leading sufficient evidence and plaintiff cannot take advantage of weakness of case of defendants and in the case in hand, he learned Lower Court to prove their case by leading sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence, but perusal of entire oral as well as documentary evidence led by appellants before the learned Lower Court clearly prove the fact that appellants have iserably failed to prove their case before the learned Lower Court by leading cogent and convincing evidence and appellants failed to convince the Court regarding their title and possession and learned Lower Court properly appreciated the ll as documentary evidence and rightly held , which is a copy SUNENA 2025.05.28 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document of resolution dated 22.12.2012 wherein authority has been given to appellants against the respondents, but perusal of document Ex.Pl shows that except signatures of appellant Manpreet Singh, who claims himself to be President of Club, the resolution does not bear the signatures of any member and appellants have not produced on record original resolution so as to ascertain that how many members hav to file the said suit and appellants have placed on record Ex. P18, which is the only one page of constitution of Youth Social Welfare Society, but complete constitution of Society has not been produced or proved by appellants before the l Lower Court and, therefore, learned Lower Court further observed that appellants have not proved on record the best evidence and the entire record containing the rules and regulations for selection criteria of President has not been produced and learned Lower Court also observed that appellant Manpreet Singh who claims to be President should be aware of rules and regulations for the appointment of President as he claims to be elected as President, but during the cross- examination, he did not specifi question put by the learned counsel for respondents whether there is any condition for appointment of President, who has membership for at-least ten years and witness replied that he does not know, meaning thereby even the alleged elected President of the Society has not specifically denied the question put by the learned counsel for respondents and further regarding the possession of suit property, learned Lower Court rightly considered the cross-examination of PW4 Sushil Kumar who was one of the plaintiff before learned Lower Court when of resolution dated 22.12.2012 wherein authority has been given to appellants against the respondents, but perusal of except signatures of appellant Manpreet Singh, who claims himself to be President of Club, the resolution does not bear the signatures of any member and appellants have not produced on record original resolution so as to ascertain that how many members have authorized him said suit and appellants have placed on record Ex. P18, which is the only one page of constitution of Youth Social Welfare Society, but complete constitution of Society has not been produced or proved by appellants before the learned Lower Court and, therefore, learned Lower Court further observed that appellants have not proved on record the best evidence and the entire record containing the rules and regulations for selection criteria of President has not been rned Lower Court also observed that appellant Manpreet Singh who claims to be President should be aware of rules and regulations for the appointment of President as he claims to be elected as President, but during examination, he did not specifically denied the question put by the learned counsel for respondents whether there is any condition for appointment of President, who has least ten years and witness replied that he does not know, meaning thereby even the alleged elected President of the Society has not specifically denied the question put by the learned counsel for respondents and further regarding the possession of suit property, learned Lower Court examination of PW4 Sushil Kumar of the plaintiff before learned Lower Court when 10 of resolution dated 22.12.2012 wherein authority has been given to appellants against the respondents, but perusal of except signatures of appellant Manpreet Singh, who claims himself to be President of Club, the resolution does not bear the signatures of any member and appellants have not produced on record original resolution so e authorized him said suit and appellants have placed on record Ex. P18, which is the only one page of constitution of Youth Social Welfare Society, but complete constitution of Society has not earned Lower Court and, therefore, learned Lower Court further observed that appellants have not proved on record the best evidence and the entire record containing the rules and regulations for selection criteria of President has not been rned Lower Court also observed that appellant Manpreet Singh who claims to be President should be aware of rules and regulations for the appointment of President as he claims to be elected as President, but during cally denied the question put by the learned counsel for respondents whether there is any condition for appointment of President, who has least ten years and witness replied that he does not know, meaning thereby even the alleged elected President of the Society has not specifically denied the question put by the learned counsel for respondents and further regarding the possession of suit property, learned Lower Court examination of PW4 Sushil Kumar of the plaintiff before learned Lower Court when SUNENA 2025.05.28 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11. controvert the aforesaid facts and findings. 12. 13. 26.05.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: he admitted that possession of the suit property is with the defendants, meaning thereby appellants/ plaintiffs admitted the possession of respondents/ defendants over the suit property and, therefore, after appreciating the above said observations of learned Lower Court, this Court is accordingly satisfied that learned Lower Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence led by the respondents before the learned Lower Court and also considered the docume learned Lower Court and also appreciated the cross examination of witnesses examined by appellants and learned Lower Court rightly dismissed the suit of appellants and order of dismissal is not illegal, unlawful and not perverse in any ways and duly sustainable in the eyes of law and cannot be set aside and has been passed after appreciation of evidence in a proper manner and after due application of judicial mind and, therefore, I accordingly do not agree with the contentions and arguments of learned counsel for appellants and I find no force in the same.” Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to dispute or controvert the aforesaid facts and findings. In view of the above, present appeal is Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No he admitted that possession of the suit property is with the defendants, meaning thereby appellants/ plaintiffs admitted the possession of respondents/ defendants over the suit r appreciating the above said observations of learned Lower Court, this Court is accordingly satisfied that learned Lower Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence led by the respondents before the learned Lower Court and also considered the documents before the Court and also appreciated the cross- examination of witnesses examined by appellants and learned Lower Court rightly dismissed the suit of appellants and order of dismissal is not illegal, unlawful and not perverse in any and duly sustainable in the eyes of law and cannot be set- aside and has been passed after appreciation of evidence in a proper manner and after due application of judicial mind and, therefore, I accordingly do not agree with the contentions and f learned counsel for appellants and I find no force Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to dispute or In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 10 he admitted that possession of the suit property is with the defendants, meaning thereby appellants/ plaintiffs admitted the possession of respondents/ defendants over the suit r appreciating the above said observations of learned Lower Court, this Court is accordingly satisfied that learned Lower Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence led by the respondents before the learned nts before the - examination of witnesses examined by appellants and learned Lower Court rightly dismissed the suit of appellants and order of dismissal is not illegal, unlawful and not perverse in any - aside and has been passed after appreciation of evidence in a proper manner and after due application of judicial mind and, therefore, I accordingly do not agree with the contentions and f learned counsel for appellants and I find no force Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to dispute or SUNENA 2025.05.28 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document