Ram Pal And Ors vs Sumer Chand And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 3344 P&H

                            103                                                    2023:PHHC:048623

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                                                            CHANDIGARH



                                                                      RSA No.489 of 2020 (O&M)
                                                                      DATE OF DECISION : 10.04.2023



                            Ram Pal and Others                                                .....Appellants

                                                                  versus

                            Sumer Chand and Others                                           .....Respondents



                            CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN



                            Present :      Mr. Chetan Kapoor, Advocate for the appellants

                                                 ..

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral):

The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs against

the concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the Courts below vide

judgments and decrees dated 09.04.2015 and 18.08.2018.

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-

appellants preferred a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the

effect that they along with defendant No.4 are owners in possession of the

houses as detailed in the plaint and for setting aside the orders dated

06.03.2013 and 15.05.2013 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and

the Collector, Karnal. It was further averred that plaintiff-appellants and

defendant-respondent Nos.4 to 13 had constructed their houses in specific PARKASH CHAND 2023.04.11 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

2023:PHHC:048623

khasra numbers which were wrongly described in the jamabandis. The suit

was contested by the defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 who raised

preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability, suppression of

facts, estoppel, jurisdiction, etc. On merits, it was contended that the

plaintiff-appellants were in illegal possession of the suit property which

belonged to Gram Panchayat.

The Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

framed the following issues :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for

declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs and

performa defendant no.4 as prayed for ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to consequential

relief of permanent injunction restraining the

defendants no.1 to 3 from dispossessing the house

of the plaintiffs and performa defendants no.4 in

any manner ? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause

of action to file and maintain the resent suit ? OPD

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for

misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties ?

OPD

5. Relief.

Vide order dated 16.08.2013 the Trial Court framed the following

preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction :

PARKASH CHAND 2023.04.11 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

2023:PHHC:048623

Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to try and

entertain the present suit or not ? OPD

On the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, the Trial Court held

that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred in view of the provisions

of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961. The suit was dismissed on

the ground of lack of jurisdiction vide judgment and decree dated

09.04.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff-appellants preferred an

appeal which was also dismissed on 18.08.2018. Hence, the present regular

second appeal before this Court.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants would contend

that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that the plaintiff-

appellants were the owners of the suit property. However, on the core issue

of jurisdiction, the learned counsel has not addressed any arguments. Both

the Courts below have concurrently found that Section 13 of the Punjab

Village Common Lands Act, 1961 specifically bars the jurisdiction of the

Civil Courts to entertain any suit raising the question as to whether

immovable property is shamlat deh or otherwise. The documents on the

record, Ex.P13 to Ex.P15, itself show that the suit property vests in the Gram

Panchayat whereas the plaintiff-appellants have been claiming the suit

properties to be theirs'. The question of title can only be decided by the

Assistant Collector Ist Grade and the Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide

order dated 06.03.2013 had ordered the ejectment of the plaintiff-appellants.

The appeal was also dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 15.05.2013.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has not addressed any

PARKASH CHAND 2023.04.11 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

2023:PHHC:048623

arguments as to the findings returned by the Courts below regarding the

jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

In view of the above, 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 appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly

dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

Dismissed.

                            10.04.2023                                                        (ALKA SARIN)
                            parkash                                                              JUDGE




                                                  NOTE:

Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

PARKASH CHAND 2023.04.11 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.