Nasib Kaur vs Gurdial Singh

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Nasib Kaur vs Gurdial Singh on 7 May, 2024

Author: Alka Sarin

Bench: Alka Sarin

                            RSA-1598-1995 (O&M)
                                                                                                       1
                            203
                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                   CHANDIGARH

                                                                         RSA-1598-1995 (O&M)
                                                                         Date of decision : 07.05.2024


                            Nasib Kaur                                                    ... Appellant(s)

                                                               Versus

                            Gurdial Singh                                                ... Respondent(s)



                            CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN



                            Present:     Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate for
                                         Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the appellant.

                                         Mr. V.K. Kataria, Advocate for the respondent.



                            ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. Vide order dated 11.03.2024 fresh notice was issued to the appellant. As per the office report, the sole appellant refused to accept the notice, however, affixation was made. Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate appearing for the appellant states that though the appellant has not contacted him, however, he would address arguments in the matter.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant- appellant challenging the concurrent findings of fact returned by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court vide judgments and decrees dated 31.08.1992 and 04.01.1995 respectively.

Yogesh Sharma 2024.05.08 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

RSA-1598-1995 (O&M) 2

3. Brief facts relevant to the present case are that the plaintiff- respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction averring therein that the defendant-appellant was threatening to dispossess him from the suit land illegally and forcibly. It was further the case set up that the suit land was shamlat land of Patti Gurditta and the plaintiff-respondent was in possession of the same as per the khasra girdawaris from kharif 1985 to sauni 1987 and that mutation was also sanctioned in his name. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant on preliminary grounds of maintainability. On merits, it was pleaded that the suit had been filed only to harass the defendant- appellant. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff-respondent was not in possession of the suit land and hence was not entitled to a decree for permanent injunction.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court :

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land ? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

4. Relief.

4. The Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 31.08.1992 holding the plaintiff-respondent to being in possession and passed a decree that he would not be dispossessed except in due course of Yogesh Sharma 2024.05.08 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

RSA-1598-1995 (O&M) 3 law. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the defendant- appellant which appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 04.01.1995. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant would contend that the defendant-appellant is in possession of the suit land and that the revenue record has not been read in the correct perspective. It is urged that the Courts have erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent would contend that reliance was placed upon the jamabandi for the year 1987-88 (Ex.P1) and khasra girdawari for the year 1988-89 (Ex.P4) which clearly showed the possession of the plaintiff-respondent and that the Courts have decreed the suit after minute scrutiny of the evidence on the record.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. In the present case both the Courts found that the plaintiff- respondent was in possession of the suit land based on the revenue documents. Further still, it has been observed in the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court that there was a dispute regarding the correction of the khasra girdawari qua the suit land itself which was recorded in favour of one Pritam Singh. Subsequently, the same was got corrected in the name of the plaintiff-respondent. An appeal preferred by Pritam Singh was also dismissed by the Collector, Bathinda on 07.03.1989. Yet another dispute arose between the parties herein pertaining to mutation proceedings which was decided by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur on 06.12.1989. The said proceedings were decided in favour of the plaintiff- Yogesh Sharma 2024.05.08 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

RSA-1598-1995 (O&M) 4 respondent. This Court is not convinced that the plaintiff-respondent had in any manner failed to show his possession. In a suit for permanent injunction, only the possession has to be seen. Based on the revenue record, both the Courts have concurrently found as a matter of fact that the plaintiff- respondent was in possession of the suit land.

9. In view of the above, no fault can be found with the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present case. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

                            07.05.2024                                       ( ALKA SARIN )
                            Yogesh Sharma                                         JUDGE

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO Yogesh Sharma 2024.05.08 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.