Ashok Kumar vs Hansraj And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 1822 P&H

(107) RSA No. 357 of 2022 (O&M)                                                 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
              CHANDIGARH

                                                  RSA No. 357 of 2022 (O&M)
                                                  Date of decision: 27.01.2023
Ashok Kumar                                                      ...... Appellant.
                                    Versus
Hansraj and another                                             ..... Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present:-   Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate, for the appellant.

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

The appellant has challenged the judgments and decrees of the

Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant/plaintiff was in possession of the suit land which has been

established from the report of the local commissioner and the site plan and,

therefore, the suit ought to have been decreed.

Heard.

The appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction

restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering in his peaceful

possession over the suit land as detailed in para No.2 and 3 of the plaint and

marked by letters ABCD. The appellant/plaintiff has not been able to place

on record any document or revenue record in support of his claim. The

respondents/defendants, on the contrary, have proved the agreement to sell

dated 27.07.2014 (Ex. D1) and 18.10.2014 (Ex. D2) whereby they had

purchased the suit property from the original owners Ajay Raj Singh and

others. The revenue record i.e. jamabandi for the year 2006-07 (Ex. D4)

indicated the ownership and possession of Ajay Raj Singh and others. The

1 of 2

site plan (Ex. P1), which was marked by letters 'ABCD', has been held to be

part and parcel of Khewat No. 77/62 which in the aforementioned jamabandi

is in the ownership and possession of Ajay Raj Singh and others.

The appellant/plaintiff has relied upon the report of the local

commission, but it has also come out in the report that the wall 'AD' had been

constructed by the respondents/defendants. Even otherwise, it is well settled

law that local commission cannot be appointed to ascertain possession which

has been held by this Court in the case of Pardhan and others versus Mohar

Singh and others, 2012 (13) RCR (Civil) 137. It was enjoined upon the

appellant/plaintiff to prove his possession over the land in dispute, which is

stated to be 'bara'. Mere production of site plan on record by the

appellant/plaintiff cannot be considered to be sufficient proof of ownership

and possession over the suit property.

The appellant/plaintiff is also stated to have relied upon an

ex parte decree against a third party wherein the respondents/defendants had

not been arrayed as parties and, hence, they are not bound by the ex parte

decree. Therefore, this decree has rightly been excluded from consideration

by the Courts below.

Consequently, I do not find any merit in this appeal which stands

dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of

accordingly.

                                            (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
27.01.2023                                             JUDGE
Ramesh

                     Whether speaking/reasoned         :     Yes/No
                     Whether reportable                :     Yes/No




                                  2 of 2