Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhbir Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 17 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:053318
RSA-3319-2017(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-3319-2017(O&M)
Reserved on :- 12.4.2023
Date of Pronouncement:-17.4.2023
Sukhbir Singh and others
...Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
Present: Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.M.S. Kathuria, Advocate
for the appellants.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
CM-8067-C-2017
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed and delay of 156 days in filing of the present appeal is condoned.
RSA-3319-2017(O&M)
1. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiffs Sukhbir
Singh, Ranbir Singh and Jagbir Singh, all sons of Dhan Singh, residents of
Dehri Mohalla, Rohtak had brought a suit against defendants i.e. State of
Haryana through Collector, Rohtak, Tehsildar, Rohtak and Om Parkash
son of Bharat Singh, resident of Mata Darwaja Gau Karan Road, Rohtak,
seeking declaration to the effect that they along with their sisters are
owners in possession of 1/4th share in the suit land and entry in the name
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:053318
RSA-3319-2017(O&M) -2-
of Om Parkash - defendant No.3 regarding 11/48 share of the suit land is
incorrect, illegal and the same is liable to be corrected, besides seeking a
decree for mandatory injunction directing defendants No.1 and 2 to make
necessary correction in the revenue record and documents so as to show
the plaintiffs and their sisters to be owners in possession of 1/4th share of
the suit land and further to delete the name of defendant No.3. The
plaintiffs further craved for a decree for permanent injunction restraining
defendant No.3 from alienating any part of the suit land in any manner.
2. As per the case of the plaintiffs, their father Dhan Singh was
owner in possession of 1/4 share in the suit land bearing khewat No.2221
Min/2093, Khatoni No.3614/3323, khasra No.1163 total measuring 2
bigha 10 biswas situated at Mouja Rohtak, Tehsil and District Rohtak and
it was so reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1997-98; after death of
Dhan Singh his estate devolved upon all the three plaintiffs being his sons
and Dilbar Devi and Santosh Devi - daughters and mutation No.11272 in
that regard was sanctioned in their favour, however, on obtaining copy of
jamabandi for the year 2002-03 on 12.10.2010, the plaintiffs were
shocked to know that they along with their sisters have been shown
owners in possession of 1/8 share only instead of 1/4 share and defendant
No.3 has been wrongly shown owner in possession of 11/48 share when
defendant No.3 has no concern with the land in question; on making
further inquiries, the plaintiffs came to know that an error crept in the
revenue record with regard to reflection of name of defendant No.3 as
owner in possession of 11/48 share in the suit land.
According to the plaintiffs, neither they nor their father
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:053318
RSA-3319-2017(O&M) -3-
previously had sold any part of the suit land, therefore there was no
question of defendant No.3 becoming owner to the extent of 11/48 share
in the suit land; the plaintiffs had contacted Halqa Patwari with a request
to make necessary correction in the revenue record but to no effect, giving
rise to a cause of action to the plaintiffs to bring the suit for declaration,
permanent and mandatory injunction in question.
3. On notice, all the three defendants put in appearance.
Defendants No.1 and 2 filed a joint written statement, whereas defendant
No.3 came up with a separate written statement.
In the joint written statement submitted by defendants No.1
and 2, they have raised preliminary objections to the effect that the suit is
not maintainable in the present form; the suit is bad for non-joinder and
misjoinder of necessary parties; the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file
the suit; the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit; the
suit is under valued etc. On merits, the answering defendants contended
that defendant No.3 had got sale deed registered in accordance with the
provisions of the Registration Act and Rules framed thereunder; the
mutation was entered as per information provided by the person
concerned and its sanction was subject to verification, however as
particulars of the mutation could not be verified, therefore it remained
unsanctioned. Refuting the remaining assertions, such defendants prayed
for dismissal of the suit.
In the separate written statement filed by defendant No.3, he
had also taken up various legal objection, on merits contending that the
suit land bearing Khasra No.1163 is shamlat land of Thok Jatan of Mouja
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:053318
RSA-3319-2017(O&M) -4-
Rohtak and Dhan Singh father of the plaintiffs along with Tejpal and Ved
Pal sons of Preet Singh and Satbir son of Bharat Singh had sold their
share in the land comprised in Khewat No.1417 Khatoni No.2474 to 2479
measuring 2 bighas 14 biswa Pukhta situated at Mouja Rohtak along with
their right in the shamlat land i.e. Khasra No.1163 to the answering
defendant vide sale deed No.2805 dated 27.6.1990 and the answering
defendant was put in actual physical possession of shamlat land bearing
Khasra No.1163; thereafter the vendors including Dhan Singh father of
the plaintiffs had not been left with any right, title or interest in the suit
property. According to the answering defendant, entry in jamabandi
showing Dhan Singh to be owner to the extent of 1/8 share in column of
cultivation, the same is wrong and result of miscalculation. The answering
defendant, who has been in possession of Khasra No.1163 has installed
tubewell, constructed a KOTHA and planted fruit trees of various types in
northern part of Khasra No.1163; he has been using part of this khasra
number for going to and from his agricultural land since the day of
purchase. The answering defendant has no other passage leading to his
fields except through Khasra No.1163, which abuts sanctioned rasta; there
is Government built pucca nala of 5 feet depth with 7 feet width and there
is a pucca built culvert over the Nala for proepr use of the rasta. This
defendant labelled mutation No.11272 with regard to inheritance of Dhan
Singh in favour of his children as illegal, null and void contending that
even otherwise mutation does not confer any title. According to this
defendant the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the suit land so
the entry in the revenue record showing them to be owners to the extent of
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:053318
RSA-3319-2017(O&M) -5-
1/8 share is illegal. Refuting the remaining assertions, such defendant also
craved for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed:
1. Whether the plaintiffs along with their sisters are owners in
possession of 1/4 share in the total suit land and entry in the name
of defendant No.3 in the revenue record with regard to 11/48 share
of the suit land is incorrect and is liable to be corrected
accordingly? OPP.
2. Whether mandate is to be issued against defendants No.1 and 2 to
make necessary correction in the revenue record? OPP.
3. Whether defendant No.3 is liable to be restrained from alienating
the suit property? OPP.
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.
5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit?
OPD.
6. Relief.
5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.
6. During the course of their evidence, the plaintiffs have
examined Pawan Kumar, Record-keeper as PW1. Plaintiff No.1 Sukhbir
Singh got his statement recorded as PW2 besides examining Raj Singh,
Halqa Patwari as PW3. The plaintiffs also tendered in evidence certain
documents.
In rebuttal the defendants examined Om Parkash as DW1,
Balram Saini as DW2 and Partap Singh Saini, Tehsildar, Rohtak as DW3.
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:053318
RSA-3319-2017(O&M) -6-
They further tendered in evidence sale deed as Ex.DX.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court
of Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.), Rohtak by giving issue-wise findings vide
judgment and decree dated 25.2.2016 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs
with costs.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the
plaintiffs had filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Rohtak, which
was assigned to Additional District Judge, Rohtak, who vide judgment
and decree dated 30.8.2016 dismissed the same by upholding the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
9. Still feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiffs have knocked at the
door of this Court by way of filing a regular second appeal praying that
the same be accepted, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the
Courts below be set aside and their suit be decreed.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants besides going
through the record and I find that the appeal is absolutely without merit.
11. Both the Courts below considering the pleadings of the
parties, the evidence brought on record by them and in view of the settled
legal position, have come to the conclusion that Dhan Singh father of the
plaintiffs had purchased 1/8 share in shamlat land comprised in Khasra
No.1163 vide sale deed No.3096 dated 26.10.1978 Ex.P1 and in terms of
sale deed No.2805 dated 27.6.1990 Ex.P2, he along with Tejpal, Ved Pal
and Satbir had sold land comprised in Khewat No.1417 Khatoni No.2474
to 2479 to Om Parkash defendant No.3 for a sum of Rs.80,000/- and this
fact had been admitted by plaintiff Sukhbir Singh when he had appeared
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:053318
RSA-3319-2017(O&M) -7-
as PW2 and was subjected to cross-examination. He had further admitted
possession of defendant No.3 over khasra No.1163 as well as installation
of tubewell by him therein and raising construction of KOTHA. It has also
been rightly taken note of that though the plaintiffs claimed that their
father Dhan Singh had not sold any shamlat land to vendee Om Parkash
defendant No.3 vide sale deed Ex.P2 but then they had not challenged the
said sale deed. A perusal of sale deed Ex.P2 goes to show that the land
had been transferred along with right in the shamlat land. The sale deed is
a registered document. Although words Main Haq Shamlat i.e. along with
rights in shamlat are not typed in the same sequence but then there is
nothing on record to show that those had been typed and entered later on.
Even otherwise, the sale deed being a registered document and a counter
part thereof being available in the office of Sub Registrar, Rohtak, if
defendant No.3 Om Parkash had made any addition in the recital of the
sale deed so as to add words 'along with rights in the shamlat' that would
have been clearly exposed by summoning record from the office of
General Sub Registrar, Rohtak but that was not done by the plaintiffs.
Therefore, it has to be taken that the entire recital had been typed in one
go and there is no question of entering any words later on. Dhan Singh
during his life time has not challenged the sale deed Ex.P2. Similarly the
plaintiffs had not offered specific challenge to that sale deed rather its
valid execution had been admitted by the plaintiff Sukhbir Singh while
appearing as PW2 in his cross-examination.
12. Under the circumstances, Dhan Singh having sold land along
with share in the shamlat land, he was not left with any right or interest in
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:053318
RSA-3319-2017(O&M) -8-
the shamlat land and on his death the same could not be inherited by his
children i.e. the plaintiffs sons and two daughters. Therefore, the plaintiffs
were rightly not found entitled to the declaration that they are owners in
possession of the suit land and no mandatory injunction was required to
be issued to defendants No.1 and 2 to carry out any correction in the
revenue record. For the similar reasons, defendant No.3 having been
found to be owner in question, no rider can be put upon his rights to deal
with it in the manner he feels like including alienating it.
13. The findings given by the Courts below are based upon
proper appreciation and correct interpretation of law. Both the Courts had
rejected the claim of the plaintiffs. I do not see any reason to disagree with
the Courts below and take a different view and further to interfere with the
impugned judgments and decrees. Those judgments and decrees are
upheld.
14. No substantial question of law or fact arises in this appeal.
15. The appeal stands dismissed with costs accordingly.
Since the main appeal stands dismissed, the miscellaneous
application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
17.4.2023 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:053318
8 of 8
