Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lachhman Ram Etc vs Satnam Kaur Etc on 13 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037210
2024:PHHC:037210
RSA-1854-1993 (O&M)
1
137 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Decided on: 13.03.2024
RSA-1854-1993 (O&M)
Lachhman Ram and others .....Appellants
V/S
Santam Kaur and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Ms. Sakshi Singh, Advocate for
Mr. K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate
for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
****
HARKESH MANUJA J. (ORAL)
1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been made to the judgments and decrees dated 23.11.1989 and 06.04.1993 passed by the Courts below, whereby a suit for permanent injunction filed at the instance of respondents/ plaintiffs with a prayer for restraining appellants-defendants in their peaceful possession over the suit property, stands decreed.
2. Briefly stating, the respondents/ plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction with a prayer for restraining the appellants/ defendants from interfering into their peaceful possession over the disputed plot comprised in Khasra No.84//19/9/0-3 forming part of abadi of Village Begowal, District Kapurthala. It was claimed that the mother of respondents/ plaintiffs was allotted the aforesaid plot by the Gram Panchayat followed by handing over of its possession, however, the appellants/ defendants were interfering therein and as such the suit.
1
1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 18-03-2024 22:22:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037210 2024:PHHC:037210 RSA-1854-1993 (O&M) 2
3. In response, appellants/ defendants filed written statement controverting the stand taken in the plaint while submitting that the plots were allotted in favour of the parties in view of resolution dated 27.09.1976 passed by the Gram Panchayat, Village Begowal, in accordance with Rule 10 (b) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964. It was further averred that mother of respondents/ plaintiffs was allotted plot No.94; whereas the appellants/ defendants were allotted plot No.95 and the land in dispute formed part of plot No.95 and prayed that the suit was thus, liable to be dismissed.
4. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 23.09.1989 decreed the suit in favour of the respondents/ plaintiffs while restraining the appellants/ defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit land.
Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/defendants filed first appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, however, the same came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 06.04.1993 thereby, upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
5. Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees, learned counsel representing the appellants/defendants submits that there has been misreading of evidence on the part of Courts below while decreeing the suit in favour of the respondents/ plaintiffs. On the other hand, no one has appeared on behalf of respondents-plaintiffs.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants and gone through the paper-book. I do not find substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants.
7. A concurrent finding of fact has been recorded in favour of 2 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 18-03-2024 22:22:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037210 2024:PHHC:037210 RSA-1854-1993 (O&M) 3 respondents / plaintiffs as regards their settled possession over the suit land which has been based on the documentary evidence produced on record in the shape of aks-shajra, Jamabandies as well as Khasra Girdwaries. .
More than that, nothing has been pointed out to submit that there has been any misreading of the material evidence or any such evidence has either been ignored.
8. In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, finding no illegality or perversity with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below as regards the possession of respondents-plaintiffs over the suit property, the present appeal is hereby dismissed there being no question of law involved.
9. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
March 13, 2024 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
Anu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037210
3
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 18-03-2024 22:22:51 :::