Phool Singh And Others vs Jagpal Singh And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2071 P&H

                                                                         101



       In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh


1.                        Regular Second Appeal No. 2775 of 2001 (O&M)


Phool Singh (Since Deceased) through his legal heir and Others

                                                            ... Appellant(s)

                                       Versus

Jagpal Singh and Others
                                                          ... Respondent(s)

2.                        Regular Second Appeal No. 2792 of 2001 (O&M)


Phool Singh (Since Deceased) through his legal heir and Another

                                                            ... Appellant(s)

                                       Versus

Jagpal Singh and Others
                                                          ... Respondent(s)
                                       AND

3.                         Regular Second Appeal No. 850 of 2002 (O&M)


Phool Singh (Since Deceased) through his legal heir and Others

                                                            ... Appellant(s)

                                       Versus

Jagpal Singh and Others
                                                          ... Respondent(s)

                   DATE OF DECISION: 25.03.2022

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:    Mr.Anish Setia , Advocate
            for the appellant(s).

            Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate
            with Mr. Dhruv Mittal, Advocate
            for the respondents.

                              1 of 8
           ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:54:34 :::
 Regular Second Appeal No. 2775 of 2001 (O&M)                             2
Regular Second Appeal No. 2792 of 2001 (O&M) AND
Regular Second Appeal No. 850 of 2002 (O&M)


Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of a set of three regular second

appeals i.e. Regular Second Appeal No. 2775 & 2792 of 2001 and 850 of

2002. The parties are common and the suit property is identical. In fact, the

decision of all the three appeals is dependent upon the validity and

correctness of a settlement deed dated 26.07.1984.

2. In Regular Second Appeal No. 2775 of 2001, the defendants

assail the correctness of the judgment, passed by the First Appellate Court

on 31.01.2001. The First Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and

decree, passed by the trial Court dated 27.10.1998.

3. Since there are multiple suits, therefore, to avoid confusion, the

parties thereto shall be referred to by their names.

4. Late Sh. Jeetan Singh son of late Sh. Ganga Sahai filed a suit

for passing a decree of possession by way of partition. He alleged that he,

along with the defendants, was co-owner in the land measuring 2 kanals and

14 marlas, located in village Atterna, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.

Sh.Phool Singh and Sh.Roshan Lal contested the suit while asserting that the

suit land has already been partitioned, which was acknowledged in writing

dated 08.11.1988. It was further alleged that the plaintiff has received the

entire amount of compensation of his share in the Well and therefore, the

defendant No.1 to 5 are the exclusive owners in possession of the land

comprised in rectangle No. 37 killa No. 26 (1 kanal 14 marlas).

5. A deed of settlement dated 26.07.1984 was produced in

evidence as Ex.D1. It was proved by examining a witness to the aforesaid

2 of 8

Regular Second Appeal No. 2792 of 2001 (O&M) AND Regular Second Appeal No. 850 of 2002 (O&M)

deed of settlement, namely Sh.Ranbir Singh (Sarpanch). It was also found

that late Sh. Jeetan Singh, on receipt of an amount of ₹27,000/-, had

executed a receipt Ex.D2. In the revenue record, it was found that the parties

have entered into their respective possession pursuant to the partition and

jamabandi for the year 1991-92 has been produced to prove that the passage

is duly recorded in the revenue record. Thus, the trial Court dismissed the

suit. The First Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree, passed

by the trial Court, while recording the following reasons:-

I) The deed of settlement dated 26.07.1984 is signed by

only by one witness.

II) The deed of settlement is only with respect to the Well

and it does not mention about the partition of the whole

property.

III) No private partition is permissible.

6. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties, at length and

with their able assistance, perused the paper-books as well as the record,

which was requisitioned.

7. The learned counsel representing the appellants (Sh.Phool

Singh and Sh.Roshan Lal) contends that the First Appellate Court has

misread the deed of settlement (Ex.D1). He, while drawing the attention of

the Court to the deed of settlement (Ex.D1), submits that apart from late Sh.

Jeetan Singh, Phool Singh and Roshan Lal, the parties to the deed of

settlement, Sh.Rajinder Singh (Sarpanch), Sh.Ranbir Singh (Namberdar),

Sh.Mohar Pal and Sh.Sukhram, Sh.Dharam Vir Singh, Sh.Padam Singh and

Sh.Raghunath have also signed/thumb marked the deed of settlement. He 3 of 8

Regular Second Appeal No. 2792 of 2001 (O&M) AND Regular Second Appeal No. 850 of 2002 (O&M)

further contends that the judgment, passed by the first Appellate Court, is the

result of misreading and non-reading of the deed of settlement (Ex.D1). He

further submits that the private partition between the parties is not barred

under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. For this purpose, he relies upon

the judgment in (Ajmer Singh v. Dharam Singh Punjab Law Reporter

2006(2) 25).

8. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the plaintiff (late

Sh. Jeetan Singh) contends that there are multiple owners in the khata and

therefore, the deed of settlement, signed by three persons, does not result in

an effective partition. However, while referring to Clause (3) of the deed of

settlement, he submits that the Well, in rectangle No. 37 khasra No. 26, was

kept joint. He further submits that the deed of settlement is not proved

because the Scribe-Sh.Ranbir Singh has not been examined. He also relies

upon the report of a privately engaged Fingerprint Expert.

9. On a careful perusal of the deed of settlement (Ex.D1), it is

evident that the First Appellate Court was factually incorrect while

observing that it was signed only by one witness. As already noticed, there

are as many as seven witnesses who have singed the deed of settlement,

apart from the parties. The learned counsel representing the plaintiff (late Sh.

Jeetan Singh) does not dispute this fact.

10. On a careful reading of the deed of settlement (Ex.D1), it is

evident that the parties not only acknowledged the partition of the

agricultural land, but also the tube-well. From further reading of Clause (1)

of the deed of settlement, it is evident that the second party had agreed to

pay ₹27,000/- in lieu of his share in the tube-well.

4 of 8

Regular Second Appeal No. 2792 of 2001 (O&M) AND Regular Second Appeal No. 850 of 2002 (O&M)

11. The aforesaid amount of ₹27,000/- had been paid vide receipt

(Ex.D2), which was, again, thumb marked by late Sh. Jeetan Singh and

attested by six witnesses. Late Sh. Jeetan Singh had thumb marked the

receipt in a manner that half portion of his thumb impression is on the

revenue stamp, whereas the remaining is on the receipt. It is also evident

from the careful reading of Clause (5) of the deed of settlement, along with

the note attached, that the parties intended to divide their property. Out of

the joint land, the land measuring 1 kanal and 14 marlas fell to the share of

Sh.Phool Singh and Sh.Roshan Lal, whereas, the land measuring 1 kanal fell

to the share of late Sh. Jeetan Singh. In fact, from the reading of Clause (2)

of the deed of settlement, it is evident that the party No.1 i.e. late Sh. Jeetan

Singh undertook that he will not have any share in the Well, located in the

rectangle No. 37 khasra No. 26 and he will not be entitled to draw water

from the tube-well. In Clause (4) of the deed of settlement, it has been

provided that the land underneath the Well will remain joint, but the first

party will have no right to dig another tube-well.

12. It was further agreed between the parties that there would be a

joint passage towards the eastern side of the land, which had fallen to the

share of the first party i.e. late Sh. Jeetan Singh, comprised in rectangle No.

13. The learned counsel representing the respondent (late Sh.Jeetan

Singh) does not dispute that there has been a specific partition of the

property and this agreement to sell is a legal settlement, which is not

confined to the partition of tube-well only.

14. As regards the next reason, the law is well settled. There is no 5 of 8

Regular Second Appeal No. 2792 of 2001 (O&M) AND Regular Second Appeal No. 850 of 2002 (O&M)

bar for the parties to divide the agricultural property without any

intervention of the revenue authorities or the Court. Reliance in this regard

has been placed on Ajmer Singh's case (supra).

15. Now this Court proceeds to analyze the arguments of the

learned counsel for the respondents. With regard to the first argument, it

would be noted that in the land measuring 2 kanals and 14 marlas, there

were only three owners, who have partitioned the property amongst

themselves. The deed of settlement is inter se between these three persons.

Hence, this argument has no substance.

16. Clause (3) of the deed of settlement has been misread by the

First Appellate Court. In fact, a perusal of the original document, it is

evident that the first line of Clause (3) has been scored off and it is

specifically provided in the remaining part of Clause (3) that the first party

i.e. late Sh. Jeetan Singh will not be entitled to draw water from the tube-

well installed in rectangle No. 37 khasra No. 26. In fact, Clause (4) of the

deed of settlement provides that the land underneath the tube-well will

remain joint. However, there is no clause in the deed of partition to the effect

that the remaining property will continue to be joint.

17. As regards the next argument with regard to non-examination

of the Scribe in the Court, it would be noticed that the deed of settlement is

not required to be attested by law. Hence, it is governed by Section 72 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The aforesaid document has been proved by

examining the witness to the deed of settlement i.e. Sh.Rajinder Singh as

DW.2. Moreover, Sh.Jagpal Singh son of late Sh.Jeetan Singh admits that

the parties are in the exclusive possession of their respect shares as per the 6 of 8

Regular Second Appeal No. 2792 of 2001 (O&M) AND Regular Second Appeal No. 850 of 2002 (O&M)

deed of settlement.

18. Hence, failure to examine the Scribe will not adversely affect

the result of the suit, because there is no reason to draw any adverse

inference.

19. The learned counsel representing the plaintiff (late Sh. Jeetan

Singh) tried to take the benefit of the report of a privately engaged

Fingerprint Expert. No doubt, under Section 45, the opinion of the Expert

including the Fingerprint Expert is relevant. However, such report, if any, is

not binding on the Court. Such report cannot be preferred over the direct

evidence. In the present case, there is overwhelming evidence to prove the

settlement between the parties. There is a written document, which was

followed by a receipt. A perusal of the revenue record also proves that the

deed of settlement was given effect to as the parties entered into their

respective possession. Even Sh.Jagpal Singh (the plaintiff) has admitted

that his family is in possession of the land measuring 1 kanal, whereas the

family of Sh.Phool Singh and Sh.Roshan Lal are in possession of the land

measuring 1 kanal and 14 marlas.

21. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the judgment passed by the

First Appellate Court is liable to be set aside. Hence, the Regular Second

Appeal No. 2775 of 2001 is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the

First Appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored.

22. Sh.Phool Singh filed a suit for grant of decree of permanent

injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the right of the user

of a joint passage as per Ex.D1. Ex.D1 has already been proved. As per

Clause (5) of the deed of settlement, it is evident that two karams wide 7 of 8

Regular Second Appeal No. 2792 of 2001 (O&M) AND Regular Second Appeal No. 850 of 2002 (O&M)

passage was permitted to be used by Sh.Phool Singh and Sh.Roshan Lal. In

the present case, the trial Court decreed the suit, but the first Appellate Court

reversed the judgment and decree.

23. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Regular Second Appeal

No. 850 of 2002 is allowed. The judgment and decree, passed by the

Appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored.

24. In the Regular Second Appeal No. 2792 of 2001, the dispute is

with regard to the trees, located on the Eastern side of the common land left

for the Well. The learned counsel representing Sh.Phool Singh and

Sh.Roshan Lal admits that the judgment and decree, passed by the first

Appellate Court is correct and he does not dispute the same. Hence, the

Regular Second Appeal No. 2792 of 2001 is disposed of as such.

25. The miscellaneous application(s) pending in all the three

appeals, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge March 25, 2022 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

8 of 8