Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sampuran Singh vs Harnek Singh Etc on 19 December, 2022
101
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Regular Second Appeal No. 888 of 1990 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 19.12.2022
Shampuran Singh
... Appellant(s)
Versus
Harnek Singh and Others
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present: Mr. V.Ramaswaroop, Advocate
for the appellant(s).
Mr. P.S.Punia, Advocate
for the respondents.
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1. The Regular Second Appeal in the States of Punjab, Haryana
and Union Territory, Chandigarh is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab
Courts Act, 1918 and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, as held by a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pankajakshi
(Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika and Others (2016) 6 SCC 157.
2. The plaintiff assails the correctness of the concurrent findings
of fact arrived at by the Courts below while dismissing his suit for grant of
decree of possession to the extent of 6 marlas out of the land comprised in
rectangle No. 58 and killa No. 4.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have
encroached upon the aforesaid portion which, in fact, belongs to him. The
plaintiff and the defendants are the neighbours. Their agricultural land is
situated abutting each other's land. The trial Court, after noticing that two
contradictory demarcation reports have been filed by the parties, deputed the
Halqa Kanungo (Area Kanungo) to demarcate the land in dispute. It was
found that the land belonging to the plaintiff in khasra No. 4 and 5 was
1 of 2
complete except that the Northern side of killa No.4 was less by one karam.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, both the Courts below have dismissed
the suit.
4. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties, at length and
with their able assistance, perused the paper-book.
5. The learned counsel representing the appellant while drawing
the attention of the court to para 15 of the judgment passed by the First
Appellate Court submits that the decree should have been passed at least to
the extent of one karam land from Killa No. 4.
6. While demarcating the land, there is always a possibility of a
slight variation/modification. The plaintiff while filing the suit claims
encroachment on the Eastern side of killa No.4. It is not his case that the
land from the Northern side has been encroached upon by the defendants.
Moreover, the Local Commissioner has found that the plaintiff is in
possession of his entire land and there is no deficiency therein.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground is made out to
interfere with the impugned judgments passed by the trial Court as well as
the First Appellate Court. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
8. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(Anil Kshetarpal)
Judge
December 19, 2022
"DK"
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
