Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Kumar vs Sat Parkash & Ors on 27 January, 2023
RSA No. 146 of 1993 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 146 of 1993 (O&M)
Date of decision : 27.1.2023
...
Ashok Kumar
................Appellant
vs.
Sat Parkash and another
.................Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan
Present: Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Chetan Salathia, Advocate for the respondents.
...
H. S. Madaan, J.
1. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff - Ashok
Kumar son of Pehlad Singh, resident of Pana Ladhan, Charkhi Dadri,
had brought a suit against defendants Sat Parkash and Har Sawrup,
both sons of Richhpal, residents of Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil Charkhi
Dadri, claiming possession by way of ejectment of defendants from
the suit property.
2. As per case of the plaintiff, he had been in possession of
the suit property, as owner. However, during his absence from the
village, the defendants had taken forcible possession thereof, by
demolishing the wall and opening a door. When the defendants did
not vacate the said property, despite repeated requests by the plaintiff,
he brought the suit in question.
1 of 5
3. On notice, the defendants appeared and filed a written
statement contesting the suit, denying that the plaintiff had been in
possession of the suit property as owner, rather claiming themselves
to the owners of the suit property. According to them, previously their
ancestors owned that property from whom they had acquired the
ownership rights. The defendants denied having demolished the wall
in absence of the plaintiff or taking forcible possession of the suit
property. The alternative plea taken up by the defendants was that
they have become owners of the suit property by way of adverse
possession.
4. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement,
controverting the assertions made therein and reiterating the
averments in the plaint. From the pleadings of the parties, following
issues were framed :-
1) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land, as
alleged? OPP
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of
the suit property? OPP
3) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the
present suit ? OPD
4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present
form ? OPD
5) Whether the suit is false and frivolous? OPD
6) Relief.
6. Parties were afforded adequate opportunities to lead
evidence in support of their respective claims.
2 of 5
7. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court of Sub Judge
Ist Class, Charkhi Dadri, decided issues No. 1 and 2 against the
plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. Issues No. 3 to 5 were not
pressed and were decided against the defendants, accordingly. As
per findings of the trial Court, the suit of the plaintiff was
dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.1990.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff had preferred an appeal
before the District Judge, Bhiwani, which was assigned to
Additional District Judge, Bhiwani. However, he dismissed that
appeal vide judgment and decree dated 17.8.1992.
9. Still feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff has knocked at the
door of this court by way of filing the present regular second
appeal before this Court, notice of which was given to the
respondents-defendants, who have put in appearance through
counsel.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, besides
going through the record.
11. In this case, the plaintiff claimed himself to be owner of
the suit property alleging that the defendants, who have no concern
therewith, had taken forcible possession of the same during his
absence by breaking open the wall and installing a door there,
which allegations were strongly refuted by the defendants. The
onus was heavy upon the plaintiff to establish such assertions on
record by leading enough cogent and convincing evidence, but he
has miserably failed to do so. Although the basis for alleged title of
the plaintiff was registered Gift Deed dated 15.3.1984 executed by
3 of 5
Rajinder Parshad, but that Gift Deed was not proved on record.
Such being the state of affairs, the plaintiff could not establish his
ownership of the suit property and unless the plaintiff could show
that he had a better title than the defendants, he could not possibly
ask for decree for possession by way of ejectment of defendants
from the suit property. The plaintiff had failed to discharge the
initial onus placed upon him to prove his title over the suit
property. Therefore, the trial Court by detailed and thorough
analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties in light of their
pleadings, had decided issues no. 1 and 2 against the plaintiff and
in favour of the defendants, resultantly, dismissing the suit filed by
the plaintiff. Such judgment and decree were affirmed by the
learned additional District Judge, Bhiwani, vide judgment dated
17.8.1992.
12. I find that judgments passed by both the Courts below to
be quite detailed, well reasoned, based upon proper appreciation
and appraisal of evidence and correct interpretation of law. No
illegality or infirmity is found to be there with, which might have
warranted interference by this Court in Regular Second Appeal.
13. No substantial question of law arises in the present
appeal.
14. The appeal is found to be without any merit and the same
stands dismissed accordingly.
( H.S. Madaan )
27.1.2023 Judge
chugh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
4 of 5
Whether reportable Yes / No
5 of 5
