Surjit Singh vs Lakhmir Singh And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1803 P&H

RSA No.3529 of 2013 (O&M)                                             1


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

     101

                                       RSA No.3529 of 2013 (O&M)
                                       Date of Decision: 27.01.2023

             Surjit Singh
                                                           ....Appellant
                                  Versus
             Lakhmir Singh and others

                                                           ....Respondents


             CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

             Present:    Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate
                         for the appellant.

                         Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate
                         for respondents No.1 to 4.

                                                ***

             Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties submit

that the ownership of the land in dispute is not in dispute as the

respondent-defandant is concededly the owner of the land in question.

The only question which arose was whether the possession of the land in

question with the plaintiff, which claim was being raised on the basis of

revenue record can only be taken by the owners by following due process

of law.

The trial Court recorded a finding that once the revenue

record supported the possession of the plaintiff, he can only be

dis-possessed in accordance with law whereas the lower Appellate Court

found that though the plaintiff is in possession of land but the said

possession cannot be treated as valid possession, hence claim raised in the

suit cannot be allowed.

1 of 2

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that after the

judgment of the trial Court, even the revenue entry showing the

possession of the appellant-plaintiff has already been corrected by the

revenue authorities and as of now, the record is in the favour of the

respondent-defendant qua the possession as well, for which fact, learned

counsel for the appellant pleads ignorance.

Keeping in view the above recorded facts, learned counsel

for the parties prays that they do not have objection if the judgment of the

Court below dated 22.02.2013 is set aside leaving open to the parties to

agitate their respective claim of the possession of the property in question

in accordance with law to be agitated before appropriate forum in case

need so arise.

Keeping in view the above, as prayed by the learned counsel

for the respective parties, the present Regular Second Appeal is allowed

and the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court dated 22.02.2013 is set

aside with liberty as prayed for.

CM No.9503-C of 2013

Application is also allowed as such.

           January 27, 2023                        ( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI )
           jt                                              JUDGE


                        Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
                        Whether reportable?        Yes/No




                                        2 of 2