Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Gopal Jindal vs Didar Singh on 11 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118361
RSA No.203 of 1992 (O&M) -1- 2023:PHHC:118361
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.203 of 1992 (O&M)
Date of Order:11.09.2023
Gopal Jindal
.Appellant
Versus
Didar Singh ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Ms. Anjali Singla, Advocate
for the appellant.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. This is the defendant's regular second appeal against the
concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below while decreeing
the plaintiff's suit for possession of shop situated outside Patiala Gate,
Nabha.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for the grant of decree of possession on
the basis of judgment and decree passed on 04.04.1977 in Civil Suit No.195/
26.03.1977, in which he was declared as an owner in possession of the suit
property. It was alleged that the defendant has illegally and forcibly
encroached upon the shop in dispute for the last 3 years.
3. The defendant while contesting the suit claimed that the
judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff is against public policy
and he is in possession as a tenant on the basis of a rent note executed in the
year 1969.
4. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence found that the
judgment and decree passed on 04.04.1977 is not against public policy and
the defendant has no locus to challenge its correctness. The defendant also
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118361
RSA No.203 of 1992 (O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:118361
failed to produce and prove the rent note allegedly executed in the year
1969. Thus, the trial court decreed the suit.
5. In the first appeal filed by the appellant, additional issues
no.4A and 4B were framed while directing the trial court to submit a report
after granting opportunities to lead evidence. Thereafter, the report dated
27.07.1991 was received. The appellant did not file any objection to the
correctness of the aforesaid report.
6. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence
again dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.
7. In the written statement filed by the defendant, there is a
reference to the previous litigation between the parties. The learned counsel
representing the appellant admits that the aforesaid litigation has been
decided against the appellant.
8. The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that the
judgment and decree dated 04.04.1977 cannot result in the transfer of
property worth more than Rs.100/- as the same is not registered. She
submits that therefore both the courts have erred in decreeing the
respondent's suit.
9. This court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the appellant.
10. The judgment and decree passed by the court of competent
jurisdiction unless shown to be in violation of a public policy does not
require interference. In a subsequent suit, the court cannot go behind the
decree passed. Reliance in this regard can be made from the judgment
passed in Gurdev Kaur and another vs. Mehar Singh and others, AIR
1989 Punjab and Haryana 324. This Division Bench judgment has been
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118361
RSA No.203 of 1992 (O&M) -3- 2023:PHHC:118361
approved by the Supreme Court in Bhoop Singh vs. Ram Singh Major
and others, (1995) 5 SCC 709
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere is
made out.
12. Dismissed.
13. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
September 11, 2023 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118361
3 of 3
