Karamjit Singh vs Major Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 15163 P&H

105
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH


                                           RSA-1310-2021 (O&M)
                                           Date of decision : 29.11.2022


Karamjit Singh                                               ...Appellant
                                 Vs.

Major Singh                                                  ...Respondent


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ


Present:     Mr. N.K. Verma, Advocate for the appellant.

        Mr. Jashan Chopra, Advocate for
        Mr. Rakesh Chopra, Advocate for the respondent.
                    ***
MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Appellant (defendant) is aggrieved against the judgement and

decree dated 4.8.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No.20/2019 by Additional

District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby the judgment and decree dated

20.11.2018 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Khamanon decreeing

the suit for possession filed by plaintiff (respondent), was upheld.

The facts, in brief, leading to the appeal are that the plaintiff

(respondent) filed a suit for possession in respect of a constructed house

bearing No.6, measuing 125 sq. yards situated at village Chadiala, Tehsil

Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib, which was allotted to him by the then

SDO Khamanon under the policy promulgated by the State of Punjab, meant

for rehabilitation of helpless and poor people, particularly SC/BC and other

needy people at village Chadiala. As per the pleadings, the suit property was

1 of 4

RSA-1310-2021 (O&M) -2-

allotted to the plaintiff vide letter dated 22.02.2000 and the same was in illegal

possession of the defendant, therefore, the BDPO, Khamanon vide letter

No.1018 dated 8.6.2000 had directed that the possession of the property be

handed over to the plaintiff. On 5.7.2000, possession of the suit property was

delivered to the plaintiff, but on the next day, when plaintiff along with his

family was out of town, the defendant forcibly took possession of the said

house. In this regard, a criminal case against defendant under Section 447, 448,

379, 148, 149 and 406 of Indian Penal Code was also filed by way of a

criminal complaint. Broadly on this cause of action, the plaintiff sought for a

decree for possession.

Upon notice, the suit was contested by the defendant-apellant by

filing a written statement, wherein various preliminary objections relating to

the maintainability of the suit etc. were raised and, on merits, it was pleaded

that the plaintiff is not the owner of the property. As per the averments,

plaintiff is doing the job, who also owns two acres of land and previously, the

suit property was allotted to the defendant, who was put in possession of the

same. According to the defendant, the plaintiff relied upon forged documents,

whereupon a direction was issued by District Welfare Officer to hand over the

possession of suit property to him. Denying the other averments, it was prayed

that the suit be dismissed.

Further the contents of the written statement were controverted by

the plaintiff, who filed the replication and reiterated the averments contained in

plaint and maintained the stand that the suit property was allotted to him being

a poor person.

After completion of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court in all

2 of 4

RSA-1310-2021 (O&M) -3-

framed six issues and thereafter, the parties adduced their respective evidence.

Upon considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the trial Court

proceeded to decide the material issues No.1 and 1-A against the defendant and

in favour of the plaintiff.

Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree dated 20.11.2018

passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred appeal bearing No.20 of 2019,

however, the same was also dismissed through impugned judgment and decree

dated 04.08.2021. Hence, this second appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant

infact is a poor person and the suit property was allotted to him and the

plaintiff was not entitled to the allotment, because his father was an owner of

two acres of land. He submits that the criminal case lodged by the plaintiff

ended in acquittal of the defendant, but the trial Court as well as the Appellate

Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly, therefore, the impugned

judgment and decree passed by both the Courts warrants interfernce by this

Court.

During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned counsel

that no documentary evidence was adduced by the defendant to establish that

suit property was allotted in his favour. Learned counsel has raised his

arguments on illegal allotment of property in favour of the plaintiff to assail the

judgement and decree passed by both the Courts.

After hearing the learned counsel and considering the material on

record, this court finds that the respondent-plaintiff has produced documentary

evidence to establish that the suit property was allotted to him by the

competent authority under a policy formulated by the State in order to

3 of 4

RSA-1310-2021 (O&M) -4-

rehabilitate the poor persons. PW-4 Sikander Singh deposed before the Court

that the suit property was allotted in favour of the plaintiff and no allotment

was made in favour of the defendant. As per this witness, the possession of

property was handed over to the plaintiff by taking police help and the

document Ex.P-3 dated 5.7.2012 proved delivery of possession. Apart from the

documentary evidence of allotment in favour of the plaintiff, defendant

Karamjit Singh sufferred vital admissions including his concession of delivery

of possession to the plaintiff as he was residing in the suit property

temporarily.

The argument that suit property was wrongly allotted to plaintiff is

also without any merit, as this issue cannot be gone into by this Court at the

stage of second appeal, as admittedly the allotment of suit property was not

challenged by the defendant. The findings recorded by both the Courts are

based upon proper appreciation of documentary evidence on record, therefore,

it cannot be said that the findings returned by both the Courts are perverse.

Thus, no case is made out for interference by exercising

jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, as no substantial question of law is

involved.

Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

                                                          (MANOJ BAJAJ)
                                                             JUDGE
29.11.2022
geeta

               Whether speaking/reasoned:              Yes        No
               Whether Reportable:                     Yes        No




                                    4 of 4