Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kashmir Singh vs Piyare Lal on 5 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:155347
RSA-186-2019 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
113
RSA-186-2019 (O&M)
Decided on : 05.12.2023
Kashmir Singh
. . . Appellant(s)
Versus
Piyare Lal
. . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate
for the appellant(s).
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
CM-433-C-2019
This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC for seeking
condonation of delay of 360 days in re-filing the present appeal.
For the reasons set out in the application, the same is allowed.
Consequently, the delay of 360 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal is
condoned.
CM application stands disposed of.
CM-435-C-2019
Prayer in this civil miscellaneous application is for condoning
the delay of 02 days in filing the present appeal.
In view of the averments made in the application, which is duly
supported by an affidavit, delay of 02 days in filing the appeal is hereby
condoned.
CM application stands disposed of.
RSA-186-2019
1. Present Regular Second Appeal (RSA) has been filed against
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:155347
RSA-186-2019 (O&M) -2-
the concurrent finding of dismissal of suit, filed by the plaintiff (appellant
herein).
2. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration by pleading that he is in
actual physical continuous cultivating possession of agricultural land bearing
Khewat No.87, Khatoni No.191, Rect. No.10, Killa No.21(3-7), 22(8-0),
Rect. No.14, Killa No.2(7-4), 3(7-4), (8-0), 9/1(3-9), 13(9-7), 14/1(2-9), total
measuring 49 Kanal 00 Marla, situated within the revenue estate of village
Jhuppa, Tehsil & Distt. Palwal. Plaintiff also pleaded that he is in
possession for the last more than 80 years i.e. from the time of his father -
Surjan Singh, as a Gair Maurusi tenant. Plaintiff being successful successor
of his father, who was never ejected from the suit property, is thus, owner in
possession of the land by virtue of Sections 5 & 8 of the Punjab Tenancy
Act, 1887, and Section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of
Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952. Thus, suit has been filed because the revenue
entries reflect name of the defendants, and same requires to be corrected in
favour of the plaintiff.
3. In the written statement, it is pleaded by the defendant that the
suit land has already been sold out to Arjun Singh about five years back,
who is owner in possession of the suit property. Surjan Singh (father of the
plaintiff) has no right in suit land/property.
4. The learned trial Court after taking note of the pleadings and the
evidence available on record, dismissed the suit primarily on the ground that
Piyare Lal (defendant) had filed a suit qua suit property in the present
appeal, alleging that he is owner of the suit land and defendant therein i.e.
Surjan Singh was in illegal possession of the same. Said suit was decreed in
favour of the Piyare Lal (defendant herein). However, it was held in the
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:155347
RSA-186-2019 (O&M) -3-
judgment dated 09.03.2009, that said Surjan Singh was a licensee, who was
cultivating the land for its improvement.
Findings recorded by learned trial Court in paragraphs No.11 &
12, are reproduced as under:-
"11. A perusal of Ex. P-1, jamabandi of year 1999-
2000 shows that Surjan Singh was recorded as gair maurusi
tenant of suit property. To the same effect are the jamabandies
of year 1994-95 (Ex. P-2), 1989- 90 (Ex. P-3), 1984-85 (Ex. P-
4), 1974-75 (Ex. P-5), 2004-05 (Ex. P-6).
12. On the other hand, Ex. D-2 is the statement dated
31.01.2008 which shows that Pyare Lal had filed a suit qua
suit property alleging that he is the owner of suit property and
defendant was in illegal possession of the same. The suit was
decreed and Pyare Lal was declared to be owner of suit
property. Defendant was held to be in illegal possession of suit
property and he was directed to hand over possession of suit
property to Pyare Lal. Then an appeal was filed by Surjan
Singh against Pyare Lal which was dismissed vide order dated
09.03.2009. Pyare Lal was held entitled to recover possession
of suit property. Ex. D-6 shows that vide rapat no. 252 dated
23.01.2010 possession of suit property was delivered to Sumer
Singh, GPA holder of Pyare Lal. These documents are
sufficiently proving that the issue qua ownership and
possession of suit property has already been decided by the
courts of law. It was held in the judgment dated 09.03.2009
that Surjan Singh was a licensee who was cultivating the land
for improvement. It was claimed that he was not a tenant in
possession of suit land on payment of rent. It was also found
that earlier also the predecessors of Pyare Lal had filed
petition for ejectment of Surjan Singh and vide order dated
12.05.1977 an order of ejectment was passed against him."
5. Said findings have been reiterated by the learned First Appellate
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:155347
RSA-186-2019 (O&M) -4-
Court also in its judgment in paragraphs No.8 & 9, which are as under:-
"8. Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and
examined the material with due care and circumspection and I
reached to the findings. A bare perusal of the file shows that
the instant suit has been filed on the basis of Jamabandi for the
year 1999-2000 which is Ex.P1 in which Surjan Singh son of
Fota Singh has been shown, as Gair Morusi, in the column of
rent has been mentioned as Bila Lagan Bawajah Notod.
Similary, the same entries have been repeated in the
jamabandi for the year 1994-95 Ex.P2, 1989-90 Ex.P3, 1984-
85 Ex.P4, 1973-74 Ex.P5 and similar entry have been repeated
in the jamabandi for the year 2004-05 Ex.P6.
9. It is the case of the defendants that Pyare lal
earlier filed a suit for declaration to declare him as owner in
possession against Surjan Singh father of the plaintiff which
had been decreed, vide judgment and decree, dated 31.1.2008
Ex.D2 & Ex.D3, in which defendant in this case was declared
as owner of the suit land and held the Surjan Singh as in
illegal possession and the defendant in that case Surjan Singh
was directed to hand over the possession of the land in dispute
to Pyare lal plaintiff in that case within 14 days from the date
of the order. Thereafter, appeal was filed by Surjan Singh and
the same had also been dismissed, vide judgment and decree
dated 9.3.2009 Ex.D4 and Ex.D5 and then, vide Rapat
Rojnamcha no.252 Ex. D6, the possession was delivered to
Pyare Lal through his general power of attorney Ex.D1 Sumer
Singh and accordingly, vide Rapat Rohnamacha no.300
Ex.D7, the Girdawari had been corrected in favour of the
defendant Pyare lal. The land had been sold by Pyare Lal
defendant."
6. After hearing learned counsel the appellant (plaintiff) at length
and perusing the findings recorded by the learned Courts below in the
impugned judgments & decree, I do not find any substantial reason to
Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:155347
RSA-186-2019 (O&M) -5-
deviate from the view point taken by the Courts below.
Even no question of law, much less, any substantial question of
law arises for consideration in the present appeal for interference in the
impugned judgments & decree passed by the Courts below.
For the reasons recorded herein-above, the instant appeal sans
merits, and thus, dismissed. The judgment(s) & decree passed by both the
Courts below are hereby affirmed.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
December 05, 2023
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
