Smt. Anokhi vs Amar Singh

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2118 P&H
Judgement Date : 31 January, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Smt. Anokhi vs Amar Singh on 31 January, 2024

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013074




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH
105                                                           2024:PHHC:013074

                                                   RSA-1335-1992 (O&M)
                                                   Date of decision: 31.01.2024

ANOKHI                                                 ..Appellant

                                     Versus

AMAR SINGH & ORS.                                      ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:       Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate
               for the appellant.

               Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate
               for respondents.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)

1. In this regular second appeal, the plaintiff assails the correctness of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below while dismissing her suit for grant of decree of possession. She filed a suit claiming to be an owner of the property. She also claimed that the defendants filed a previous suit claiming ownership by way of adverse possession, which was dismissed on 19.12.1980, which in appeal was affirmed by the judgment dated 04.01.985. The regular second appeal filed by the defendants was also dismissed.

2. The defendant while contesting the case submitted that in fact the plaintiff sold the land to them on 25.06.1963 by virtue of an agreement on payment of the entire sale consideration of Rs.537 and 8 anna.

3. Both the Courts on appreciation of evidence dismissed the suit after recording findings of fact that the defendants are entitled to protect their possession in part performance of the agreement to sell under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the '1882 Act').


                                       1 of 3
                    ::: Downloaded on - 05-02-2024 23:03:29 :::
                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013074




                                                                 2024:PHHC:013074
RSA-1335-1992 (O&M)                                                         -2-


4. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.

5. The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that the defendants are debarred from protecting their possession under Section 53A of the 1882 Act particularly when their previous suit claiming title on the basis of adverse possession has been dismissed. He submits that in the previous suit, the defendants, who were the plaintiffs in the previous suit, never claimed protection under Section 53A of the 1882 Act.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondents submits that in the previous suit, the plaintiffs claimed that the possession of the defendants is pursuant to the agreement to sell and therefore, they are not entitled to a decree of declaration that they have become owner by way of adverse possession. He submits that the aforesaid plea of the appellant was accepted and the previous suit filed by the defendants was partly dismissed though they were granted a decree of permanent injunction protecting their possession except in due course of law. He submits that once the plaintiff has claimed that the defendants possession was pursuant to the agreement to sell, which resulted in dismissal of their suit, the defendants are entitled to protect their possession under Section 53A of the 1882 Act. Despite the repeated requests to the learned counsel representing the appellant, he failed to draw the attention of the Court to any statutory provision, which debars the defendants from protecting their possession under Section 53A of the 1882 Act in the subsequent suit. In any case, in the previous suit, the Court refused to grant a decree of declaration with respect to their ownership to defendants (who were plaintiffs in the 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 05-02-2024 23:03:30 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013074 2024:PHHC:013074 RSA-1335-1992 (O&M) -3- previous suit) on the ground that if they possess the land by virtue of the agreement to sell then they are entitled to claim protection under Section 53A of the 1882 Act.

7. Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.

8. Dismissed accordingly.

9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.

January 31st, 2024                                     (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay                                                          JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned         :        Yes/No
Whether reportable                :        Yes/No




                                                            Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013074

                                        3 of 3
                    ::: Downloaded on - 05-02-2024 23:03:30 :::