Sunita vs Shakuntala Devi
2023 Latest Caselaw 4750 P&H

                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057076




RSA-2001-2018(O&M)                           -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                                 RSA-2001-2018(O&M)
                                 Reserved on:-18.4.2023
                                 Date of Pronouncement:-20.4.2023

Smt.Sunita


                                                                   ...Appellant
                   Versus


Smt.Shakuntla Devi

                                                                ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN


Present:     Mr.Johan Kumar, Advocate
             for the appellant.

             Mr.Ashish Tewatia, Advocate for
             Mr.M.S. Tewatia, Advocate
             for the respondent.

                          ****
H.S. MADAAN, J.

1. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff

Smt.Shakuntla Devi had brought a suit for possession against her real

sister Smt.Sunita - defendant contending that she is co-owner in plot

bearing Khasra No.141/8(7-12) to the extent of 100 square yards, situated

at Shamshabad, District Palwal on the basis of sale deed bearing No.5082

dated 7.1.1997 for a sum of Rs.40,000/- from earlier owners Shri Chand

etc; mutation has since been entered and sanctioned in her favour; she

came in actual physical possession of that plot, where she had constructed

a residential house; since husband of the plaintiff was in service at Delhi,

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057076

RSA-2001-2018(O&M) -2-

she shifted to that place; her sister - defendant Sunita was not having any

residential house at Palwal and the plaintiff after constructing house in

100 square yards area towards northern side allowed the defendant to live

in said house as licensee in the year 2004; the plaintiff had sold about 100

square yards area to one Raj Pal, resident of village Sihol and delivered

actual physical possession of that area towards the southern side to him;

the plaintiff called upon the defendant to vacate the house but she did not

do so, rather she filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff,

which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.2015 by Civil

Judge (Jr.Divn.), Palwal. Thereafter, the plaintiff requested the defendant

to vacate the house but to no effect, as such the plaintiff filed the suit in

question.

2. On notice, the defendant appeared and filed a written

statement contesting the suit raising various legal objections claiming that

she had purchased 100 square yards out of plot measuring 200 square

yards from the plaintiff for total consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- in the year

2004 and plaintiff had handed over possession of that area to her; on

account of close relationship between the parties, the sale deed was not

executed immediately, rather the matter was kept open; thereafter the

defendant asked the plaintiff to execute the sale deed in her favour but the

plaintiff refused to do so. The defendant denied that she is in possession

of the property as a licensee or she is liable to vacate the said property on

revocation of any such licence. Refuting the remaining assertions, the

defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057076

RSA-2001-2018(O&M) -3-

framed:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession as prayed

for? OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has not come with clean hands and suppressed

the true and material facts from the court? OPD

4. Whether the court has no jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the

suit? OPD

5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and vexatious in

nature? OPD

6. Relief

4. The parties were afforded adequate opportunities to lead

evidence in support of their respective claims.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court

of Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.), Palwal by giving issue-wise findings vide

judgment and decree dated 30.7.2016 had decreed the suit filed by the

plaintiff for possession with regard to the suit property directing the

defendant to vacate the same and hand over peaceful possession to the

plaintiff within 2 months from the date of decision, otherwise the plaintiff

could get the possession through agency of the Court.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the

defendant had filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Palwal, who

vide judgment and decree dated 5.3.2018 dismissed the same, in the

process affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

                                        3 of 5

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057076




RSA-2001-2018(O&M)                           -4-

7. Still feeling dissatisfied, the defendant has 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 the suit be dismissed.

8. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent/plaintiff,,

who put in appearance through counsel.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going

through the record.

10. In this case both the Courts below keeping in view the

pleadings of the parties, the evidence brought on record by them, in light

of the settled legal position, have returned the findings that plaintiff is

owner of the suit property and the possession of the defendant is that of

licensee and she, after revocation of licence is liable to vacate the

possession. The version set up by the defendant that she is in possession

as owner on the basis of oral sale by plaintiff in her favour was considered

but rejected by the Courts below. Both the Courts below are unanimous

in arriving at such conclusion, which are based upon proper appreciation

of facts and evidence as well as correct interpretation of law. 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.

11. No substantial question of law or fact arises in this appeal.

12. The appeal stands dismissed with costs accordingly.

The order dated 19.4.2018 passed by this Court directing the

parties to main status quo regarding possession thus comes to an end.

                                    4 of 5

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057076




RSA-2001-2018(O&M)                           -5-

Since the main appeal stands dismissed, the miscellaneous

application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

20.4.2023                                          (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij                                                   JUDGE

Whether reasoned/speaking               :     Yes/No

Whether reportable                      :     Yes/No




                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057076

                                    5 of 5