Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inderjit vs Bal Kishan And Ors on 20 January, 2023
RSA No. 676 of 1996 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 676 of 1996 (O&M)
Date of decision : 20.1.2023
...
Inderjit
................Appellant
vs.
Bal Kishan and others
.................Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan
Present: None for the appellant
Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for the respondents.
...
H. S. Madaan, J.
1. Again there is no representation on behalf of the
appellant. The case relates to the year 1996, as such I proceed to
decide the same, with the assistance of learned counsel representing
the respondents and after going through the record.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiffs - Bal
Krishan and his brother Baldev Ram, sons of Ram Chand s/o Ram
Saroop, Ram Rattan son of Ram Chand, Ashok Kumar as well as Anil
Kumar - sons, Neelam Kumari and Arun Kumari - daughters and
Smt. Pushpa Wati - widow of Ram Saroop, all residents of village
Birampur, Tehsil Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur, had brought a suit
against defendant Shadi Ram, Inderjit, Surinder Kumar, Subhash
Chander and Shakti Kumar sons of Jagan Nath, residents of that very
village, seeking a declaration that they are owners in possession of
plot described in head note of the plaint and in the site plan attached
1 of 6
therewith, besides seeking decree for permanent injunction,
restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession over
the said plot and in the alternative craving for possession of the plot
as exclusive owners. Another relief sought is decree for mandatory
injunction directing the respondents to restore the site to the
plaintiffs, so as to bring it to the original position as public street by
removal of all sorts of constructions, illegally raised by them, as well
as seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
causing any sort of objections by raising constructions etc., or by any
other means in the same in future.
3. Notice of such suit was given to the defendants. Only
defendant no.2 appeared and filed written statement, contesting the
suit, whereas the remaining defendants did not opt to put in
appearance and were proceeded against ex parte.
4. Defendant No.2 had contested the suit raising various
legal objections, on merits denying that Sh. Ram Chand predecessor
in interest of the plaintiffs was originally owner of the plot or that the
defendants are owners in possession of the plot presently. Rather the
defendant No.2 is in possession of the plot in dispute and using it
since 1947, considering himself to be the owner of the same, as such
having become owner by way of adverse possession. According to
such defendant, the said plot is an evacuee property. With regard to
street marked ABGH, the defendant submitted that it was not a public
street but a part of the disputed plot in suit and it is in possession of
answering defendant as owner. Refuting the remaining allegations,
he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
2 of 6
5. Replication was filed. From the pleadings of the parties,
following issues were framed :-
1) Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the
plot marked as ABCDEF as alleged ? OPP
2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the
plot ABCDEF, if they are not proved to be in
possession? OPP
3) Whether the sit marked ABGH is a public street as
alleged? OPP
4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the mandatory
injunction as alleged ? OPP
5) Whether the defendant No.2 is the owner in possession
of the plot marked as ABCDEF by way of adverse
possession? OPD
6) Whether the plot in disputes marked ABCDEF is
evacuee property ? OPP
7) Whether the defendant no.2 has purchased plot No.
160 and 161 from Mohinder Singh etc. as alleged ?
OPD
8) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing this suit
as alleged ? OPD
9) Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to try this
suit ? OPD
10)Whether the suit is hit by principle of res judicata?
OPD
11)Whether the site marked ABGH is part of evacuee
3 of 6
property as alleged ? OPD
12)Relief.
6. Parties were afforded adequate opportunities to lead
evidence in support of their respective claims. During the course of
evidence, the plaintiffs examined one of the plaintiffs - Ashok
Kumar as PW1, Inder Singh son of Deva Singh as PW-2, Chanan
Ram, Patwari Halqa, Hajipur as PW-3 and thereafter closed their
evidence after tendering a copy of sale deed as Exhibit P5.
7. Defendant No.2 in his evidence, examined himself as
DW-1, Chuhar Singh son of Bulla as DW-2, Tarsem Chand son of
Mehar Chand as DW-3, Mohan Lal son of Lal Chand as DW-4 and
thereafter closed his evidence after tendering application dated
8.9.1989 as Exhibit D-1.
8. Again the plaintiffs were granted an opportunity to lead
evidence in rebuttal, when they examined Gurmeet Singh,
Registration Clerk as PW-4, Mohinder Singh son of Gopal Singh
as PW-5
9. After hearing the arguments, vide judgment dated
27.7.1992, the Court of Sub Judge III Class, Garshankar, decreed
the suit of the plaintiffs partly, passing a decree for declaration to
the effect that plaintiffs are owners of the plot marked ABCDEF as
fully described in the headnote of the plaint and that they are
entitled to get possession of the said plot from the defendants.
However, suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction
as claimed, was dismissed.
10. Both the parties felt aggrieved and had challenged the
4 of 6
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court before the District
Court at Hoshiarpur, who decided both the appeals vide common
judgment dated 22.8.1995. as a result thereof, the judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court were maintained and both the
appeals were dismissed.
11. Still feeling aggrieved, defendant No.2 Inderjit Singh
had approached this Court by way of filing the present regular
second appeal, notice of which was given to the respondents-
plaintiffs, who have put in appearance through counsel.
Subsequently, there has not been any representation on behalf of
the appellant for several last dates of hearing, for which notice had
been issued to the learned counsel who had been appearing for the
appellant earlier.
12. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent and
going through the record, I find that both the court below on
proper analysis of evidence adduced by both the parties in light of
the facts and circumstances of the case and legal position on the
point, had returned a finding that plaintiffs are owners in
possession of the plot marked ABCDEF of which defendant No.2-
present appellant, was found to be in wrongful possession. The
plea of defendant No.2 that he has become owner by way of
adverse possession was considered and rejected. However, the site
marked as ABGH was found to be street and plaintiffs were not
found entitled to relief of permanent and mandatory injunction. The
case set up by defendant No.2 in the written statement was
rejected.
5 of 6
13. I find that the judgments passed by the court below are
quite detailed, well reasoned, based upon proper appraisal and
appreciation of evidence and correct interpretation of law. There is
no illegality or infirmity therein requiring any interference by this
Court in the regular second appeal.
14. No substantial question of law arises in the present
appeal.
15. The appeal is found to be without any merit and the same
stands dismissed accordingly.
( H.S. Madaan )
20.1.2023 Judge
chugh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether reportable Yes / No
6 of 6
