Jagdish vs Hari Ram Etc
2023 Latest Caselaw 21654 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagdish vs Hari Ram Etc on 12 December, 2023

                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:036526




                                                                                    1
RSA No.503 of 1998 (O&M)



202          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

                             AT CHANDIGARH

                                             RSA No.503 of 1998 (O&M)
                                                Date of decision : 12.12.2022
JAGDISH
                                                                    ..... APPELLANT

                                        VS
HARI RAM AND ORS.
                                                               ..... RESPONDENTS

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK JAIN

Present :-   Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the appellant.

             Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate with
             Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 8.

                                 ***
ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)

The present Regular Second Appeal arises out of judgment and

decree dated 06.04.1995, whereby suit for permanent injunction filed by Hari

Ram Vs. Jagdish and others was dismissed in favour of defendants No.3 to 9

namely Badamo, Kanwal Singh, Chander, Saria, Tinno and Kale minor son of

Hoshiar Singh.

Interestingly, defendant No.1 filed an appeal despite the fact that

the suit of the plaintiff had been dismissed and there was no appeal by the

original plaintiff-Hari Singh. The appeal came to be dismissed and a

concurrent finding was recorded with regard to the status of

respondents/defendants No.3 to 9 in the original suit. The said appeal was also

came to be dismissed on 18.11.1997.

Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the

Court below has dislodged the claim by recording that the orders passed by

the Custodian Department were not binding on Civil Court.

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:036526

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted

that, in fact, it was a Custodian Department which had sold the said land to

one Shannu Lal @ Shanu Ram Ex.DW5/A and defendants No.3 to 9

purchased the said land. He further submitted that the Shannu Ram was the

predecessor-in-interest of the said property and therefore, the Court below has

rightly dismissed the suit in favaour of defendants No.3 to 9.

Learned counsel for the appellant herein, who was the defendant

No.1 in the suit has failed to demonstrate as to how the said appeal was

maintainable at his instance much less the second appeal. On the specific

query put by the Court, the learned counsel was unable to update as to

whether any separate independent proceedings were initiated by the appellant

to protect his alleged possession. There was no response to the said query, and

hence, it can be safely presumed that the appellant, who was a defendant

No.1, never initiated any proceedings to assail his claim and to stand on his

own legs. He further submitted that the said objection was not raised by the

co-defendant in the appeal.

In the light of the above facts that there are concurrent finding by

the Court below, which have not been displaced by the appellant, no ground

of interference is called for, accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.

                                                               (ALOK JAIN)
                                                                 JUDGE
12.12.2022
Manju               Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

                    Whether Reportable Yes/No




                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:036526

                                      2 of 2