Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalbir Singh And Anr vs Kundan Singh (Deceased) Thorugh ... on 29 July, 2022
337
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1261 of 2020 (O&M)
Reserved on : 27.07.2022
Date of Decision : 29.07.2022
Dalbir Singh & Another .....Appellants
versus
Kundan Singh (Deceased) through his LRs & Others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate for the appellants
ALKA SARIN, J.
The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the
plaintiff-appellants against the judgments and decrees passed by both the
Courts below dismissing their suit for declaration and permanent
injunction.
The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
appellants instituted a suit seeking a declaration declaration to the effect
that they are lessees in possession of land measuring 1 Kanal 11 Marlas in
Khasra No.70/14/2 situated in village Kala Ghanupur Sub Urban, Tehsil
and District Amritsar and that the entries corrected in the name of the
defendant-respondents in CWP No.23145 of 2010 titled as 'Kundan Singh
Vs. Financial Commissioner and Others' as per order dated 02.03.2012
passed by the Hon'ble High Court is erroneous. The plaintiff-appellants
also sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents
from alienating selling, mortgaging or transferring the suit land in any
TRIPTI SAINI
2022.07.29 15:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
manner in favour of anybody else till the final disposal of the suit and
further restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering in the
peaceful possession of the plaintiff-appellants over the suit land.
It was pleaded that the heirs of one Khazan Singh were tenants
in possession of certain land and had transferred their lessee rights by way
of lease deed dated 26.03.1969 for a period of 99 years in favour of the
plaintiff-appellants. The lease period of 99 years commenced from
29.03.1969 up to 28.03.2068. It was submitted that the plaintiff-appellants
had stepped into the shoes of the heirs of Khazan Singh and that they had
become lessees in possession of the land, including the suit land, and that
the entire lease money was paid by the plaintiff-appellants to the lessors for
99 years and the plaintiff-appellants being are in possession of the land on
the basis of the aforesaid lease deed. The Khasra Girdawri was also ordered
to be corrected by the revenue officials in favour of the plaintiff-appellants.
However, the defendant-respondents had filed CWP. No.23145 of 2010 in
the Hon'ble High Court wherein the orders vide which correction of
Khasra Girdawri was made in the name of the plaintiff-appellants were set
aside while giving the plaintiff-appellants liberty to approach the Civil
Court for redressal of their grievances if they think that the entries are
wrong. It was further averred that the defendant-respondents had got the
entry changed and were now threatening to interfere in the possession of
the plaintiff-appellants and to alienate, sell, mortgage or transfer the suit
land. Hence the suit.
On notice, the defendant-respondents appeared and filed
written statements contesting the suit. Preliminary objections regarding
TRIPTI SAINI
2022.07.29 15:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
maintainability, locus standi, maintainability, court fee and non-joinder of
parties were raised. The defendant-respondent No.1 in his written statement
took the stand that the suit land in Khasra No.70/14/2 was never part of the
lease in favour of the plaintiff-appellants and that the plaintiff-appellants
had tried to take forcible possession of the suit land. It was further
submitted that the defendant-respondent No.1 is a co-sharer to the extent of
1/6 share in the suit land that the suit land also belonged to Swaran Singh.
Defendant-respondent No.2 filed a separate written statement controverting
the allegations made in the plaint and submitted that the revenue record
having been corrected in terms of the order of the Collector, Amritsar, it
was the defendant-respondent No.2 who was in possession of the suit land.
The following issues were framed by the Trial Court :
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
declaration as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP
3. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in
the present form ? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to
file the present suit ? OPD
5. Whether the present suit is bad for non-joinder
and mis-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court
with clean hands and has suppressed the material
facts from the court ? OPD
TRIPTI SAINI
2022.07.29 15:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
7. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not valued for the
purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD
8. Relief.
Vide judgement and decree dated 30.05.2017 the Trial Court,
on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on the record,
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants. Aggrieved by the judgment
and decree passed by the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the
plaintiff-appellants which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree
dated 16.09.2019. The Courts below found that the plaintiff-appellants had
failed to prove their possession as lessees over the suit land. Hence, the
present regular second appeal.
The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has
vehemently contended that the plaintiff-appellants are in possession of the
suit land as lessees as per lease deed dated 16.03.1969 Ex.P1 and also as
per order dated 16.03.2010 Ex.P5 passed by the Financial Commissioner
and they were thus entitled to the declaration in their favour and also to the
grant of an injunction against the defendant-respondents. It has further been
contended that the revenue officials had decided the matter in favour of the
plaintiff-appellants and though these orders were set aside by this Court in
CWP. No.23145 of 2010, liberty was granted to the plaintiff-appellants to
agitate the issue before the civil court. It was submitted that the Courts
below have misinterpreted the order passed in CWP. No.23145 of 2010.
Heard.
In the present case the plaintiff-appellants had approached the
Court contending that the suit land was leased to them for 99 years vide
TRIPTI SAINI
2022.07.29 15:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
lease deed dated 16.03.1969 Ex.P1. Order Ex.P5 was also passed in their
favour by the Financial Commissioner. However, this order was set aside
by this Court in CWP. No.23145 of 2010. Further, the evidence on the
record, including a judgement and decree Ex.D3 passed in another suit,
belies the claim of the plaintiff-appellants. The lower Appellate Court also
noted that the jamabandi Ex.P4 and the deposition of PW2, Manjit Singh,
produced by the plaintiff-appellants did not support their stand. A perusal
of the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below reveals that
both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff-appellants
had been unable to prove their exclusive possession over the suit land as
lessees. The plaintiff-appellants having failed to prove their status as
lessees in the suit land and having failed to prove their exclusive possession
were rightly non-suited by both the Courts below.
In view of the above and the concurrent findings of fact
returned by both the Courts below, I do not find any merit in the present
appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law,
arises in the present case. The regular second appeal is accordingly
dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
Dismissed.
(ALKA SARIN)
29.07.2022 JUDGE
tripti
NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : YES/NO
TRIPTI SAINI
2022.07.29 15:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
