Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Singh vs Surinder Singh on 19 July, 2022
RSA-892-2022 -1-
130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-892-2022
Decided on : 19.07.2022
Surinder Singh ...... Appellant
Versus
Surinder Singh ...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present : Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral)
Suit for possession filed by the appellant-defendant was
dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 23.10.2019.
The appeal preferred against the aforesaid judgment and decree met the
same fate before the learned Appellate Court and was dismissed. The
appellant being aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts
below is, now in Regular Second Appeal before this Court. Parties to the
lis, hereinafter, shall be referred to by their original positions in the suit.
Since the plaintiff is an NRI, he authorized his nephew Avtar
Singh and appointed him as his attorney to pursue the litigation in question
on his behalf. As per the pleaded case, the plaintiff was owner of the suit
property constructed in land comprised in Khasra No.70//13 as detailed in
the headnote of the plaint. The suit property in question was purchased by
Naranjan Kaur, mother of the plaintiff, vide sale deed executed on
01.05.1957. At the time of purchase, the khasra number was No.5765/1128
1 of 4
measuring 7 marlas, but after consolidation, khasra No.70//13 measuring 5
marlas was formed and the front portion of the property merged with the
main road on the northern side. It was claimed that the defendant was
inducted as a tenant in the shop in question 32 years prior to the filing of the
suit on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- per month on the basis of oral tenancy.
During her life time, Naranjan Kaur -mother of the plaintiff continued
receiving rent from the shop. The shop in dispute though was got repaired
and renovated by the defendant, however, all the expenses were borne by
the mother of the plaintiff. After the demise of his mother, Naranjan Kaur
in July 1994, the plaintiff inherited the suit property. The defendant
allegedly stopped paying rent with respect to the shop in question to him
after the demise of Naranjan Kaur and instead started asserting right of
ownership over the same. He also refused to hand over the vacant
possession of the suit property, as a result of which, the suit in question was
filed.
In the written statement, the defendant controverted that the
plaintiff was owner of the shop in question and claimed that he was owner
in possession of the shop, having inherited the same from his forefathers.
The execution of any sale deed qua the suit property in favour of Naranjan
Kaur was categorically denied and it was submitted that in the records of
Municipal Council, Banga the defendant stood recorded as owner. The
defendant claimed that his father was running his business of carpentry in
the shop in question and thereafter, the defendant has been running his
Dhaba and STD booth since the year 1967. It was also claimed that even
otherwise, the defendant had now become owner of the shop in question by
2 of 4
way of adverse possession. A suit for permanent injunction had been filed
by the defendant against the plaintiff, which was pending adjudication
before the Civil Court.
Upon consideration of the material on record and the evidence
led, both the Courts below held that the factum of the plaintiff being owner
in possession of the suit property after inheriting it from his mother
Naranjan Kaur found due support and corroboration from the jamabandi
Ex.P-4 wherein the plaintiff stood recorded as exclusive owner of khasra
No.70//13.
The Courts below discarded the submissions of the defendant
qua his ownership over the suit property by rightly holding that documents
like tax payment receipt, electricity bills, assessment register etc. would, if
at all, only prove his possession over the suit property and not his ownership
as they were not documents of title. Qua his alternative plea of adverse
possession, the Courts below rightly did not find any merit as it was the
defendant's own admitted case that he learnt about ownership of the suit
property only in the year 2015. The Courts thus, held that the status of the
defendant was nothing more than that of a licensee/tenant.
Learned counsel for the appellant while arguing reiterated his
submissions made in the written statement and the stand taken before the
Courts below. He urged that the Courts below had erred in failing to
appreciate that there was enough documentary evidence led in the form
of tax payment receipts, electricity bills etc., from which the ownership
of the defendant over the suit property stood proved, however, the
ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property on the basis of
3 of 4
revenue records was erroneously considered by the Courts below.
Heard learned counsel and perused the relevant material
available on record.
On a perusal of the material on record, this Court does not find
any error in the findings recorded by the Courts below. The defendant
miserably failed to place on record any document of title in his or in favour
of his forefathers. The Courts below rightly rejected the plea of adverse
possession taken by the defendant against the plaintiff as it was his own
admitted case that he learnt about the ownership of the suit property in the
year 2015.
On being pointedly asked, learned counsel for the plaintiff
failed to bring to the notice of this Court anything on record to show that the
conclusions arrived at by the Courts below were either contrary to record or
suffered from any material illegality.
In the circumstances, this Court does not find any error in the
judgments and decree passed by the Courts below, which would warrant any
interference. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
JUDGE
19.07.2022
sonia
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
