Punjab-Haryana High Court
Usha Devi vs Harish Chander on 25 January, 2023
RSA-1004-1992 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-1004-1992 (O&M)
Date of decision: 25.01.2023
Usha Devi and others
...Appellants
Versus
Harish Chander and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN
Present: None.
*****
H.S. MADAAN, J. (Oral)
Notices have been issued to both the parties. Neither any
appellant/LRs of appellants nor any respondent or LRs of respondents
has put in appearance either in person or through counsel. Since the
case relates to the year 1992, I do not find it proper to adjourn it
further, rather, I proceed to decide it after going through the record.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiff Harish
Chander had brought a suit against defendants Puran and others,
seeking a decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants
from dispossessing the plaintiff from the property in question situated
within revenue estate of Tehsil Rewari, District Mohindergarh and or
from interfering in peaceful possession of plaintiff over such property.
The plaintiff has averred that if during pendency of the suit, the
defendants succeed in ousting him from the suit property, then a decree
1 of 5
RSA-1004-1992 (O&M) -2-
for possession may be granted.
According to version of the plaintiff, he is in possession of
the suit property as 'gair marusi' tenant, he is residing with his family at
Chah Sangi Wala located in the suit land. Defendants No. 4 to 9 got
effected the revenue entries in their favour in connivance with the
halqa patwari. The defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiff
illegally and forcibly from the suit property on the basis of such
entries, giving rise to a cause of action to the plaintiff to bring the suit
in question.
3. On being given notice, the defendants appeared and filed a
written statement, contesting the suit. They have raised various legal
objections. On merits, they have contended that the plaintiff is no
longer in possession of the property in dispute. According to the
defendants, the plaintiff did not cultivate the suit land as tenant under
the defendants. As a matter of fact, with regard to the suit land, the
defendant No.1 is owner in possession of 04 marlas on the basis of sale
deed dated 11.04.1980, lease deeds dated 17.08.1978 and 22.01.1981
and agreement dated 11.04.1980 executed by Sawatri Devi and
Kalawati etc., and he is using the said piece of land as ingress and
egress to his brick kiln. The defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. Plaintiff filed replication, controverting the allegations in
the written whereas reiterating the averments in the plaint.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed:-
2 of 5
RSA-1004-1992 (O&M) -3-
1. Whether the plaintiff is the tenant of the suit land under
defendants No.4 to 9? OPP.
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged in
preliminary objection No.1 of written statement of
defendant No.1?OPD.
3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from his own act and
conduct and is not having any locus standi to file the
present suit? OPD-1.
4. Relief.
6. The parties were afforded sufficient opportunities to lead
evidence in support of their respective claims.
7. After hearing arguments, the trial Court of Sub Judge Ist
Class, Rewari, gave verdict with regard to issue No.1 in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants holding that he is 'gair marusi'
tenant upon the land under defendants No.4 to 9; issue No.2 was
decided against the defendants holding that the suit was maintainable;
issue No.3 was decided holding that defendants could not show as to
how the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the
suit. Vide judgment dated 27.11.1986, the suit was decreed in favour of
the plaintiff and against the defendants, restraining the defendants from
dispossessing and from interfering in peaceful possession of plaintiff
over the property in question.
8. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were
3 of 5
RSA-1004-1992 (O&M) -4-
challenged by defendants No.4 to 9 by way of filing an appeal before
District Judge, Rewari, that appeal was assigned to Addl. District
Judge, Rewari, who vide judgment and decree dated 28.01.1992,
dismissed the appeal, leaving the defendants still dissatisfied and they
have approached this Court by way of filing the present Regular
Second Appeal, notice of which was given to the respondent/plaintiff
who had put in appearance through counsel initially. Subsequently,
there has not been any representation on behalf of any of the parties.
9. After going through the record, I find that the suit which
was decreed in favour of the plaintiff was for grant of permanent
injunction. Both the Courts below considering the pleadings of the
parties and after analyzing the evidence brought on file by them had
found the version of the plaintiff that he is in possession of the suit
land as 'gair marusi' tenant as correct. It was observed that the
defendants No.4 to 9 had wrongly got the revenue entries corrected in
their favour in connivance with the halqa patwari and on strength
thereof, the defendants tried to oust the plaintiff from the suit land,
which they could not do. The inference drawn by the Courts below is
correct. The defendants could not possibly use wrong and illegal means
to get the possession of the suit land from the plaintiff, although,
nothing prevented them from taking recourse to law to obtain
possession from the plaintiff, if so desired and so advised.
10. With concurrent findings being there in favour of the
plaintiff given by the trial Court as well as Ist Appellate Court with
4 of 5
RSA-1004-1992 (O&M) -5-
which I do not see any reason to differ, the Regular Second Appeal
filed by the defendants comes out to be without merit. No substantial
question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed
accordingly.
25.01.2023 (H.S. MADAAN)
sumit.k JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
5 of 5
