Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Kartar Singh vs Kaur Singh And Ors on 3 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045076
1
RSA No.1599 of 1991 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045076
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
136
RSA No.1599 of 1991 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 03.04.2024
KARTAR SINGH
......Appellant
Vs
KAUR SINGH AND OTHERS
....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Sonia, Advocate and
Mr. Raghav Chadha, Advocate
for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)
[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and
decree dated 14.03.1991 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Sirsa, whereby
judgment and decree dated 28.09.1990 passed by the Sub-Judge Ist Class, Sirsa
was upheld, dismissing a suit for permanent injunction filed at the instance of
appellant/plaintiff as regards the suit property marked as 'ABCD' in the plaint.
[2]. Briefly stating, the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent
injunction claiming himself to be owner in possession of suit property against the
respondents/defendants with prayer for restraining them from interfering in his
possession over the suit property.
In response, the respondents/defendants contested the suit having filed
detailed written statement while claiming themselves to be in possession of the
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045076
RSA No.1599 of 1991 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045076
entire suit property, thereby praying for dismissal of the suit filed by the
appellant/plaintiff.
[3]. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.09.1990 while
relying upon jamabandi Ex.P-5, pertaining to the year 1982 recorded a positive
finding that the suit land was owned by the Gram Panchayat of village Thiraj,
Tehsil and District Sirsa as the same was reserved for Gair Mumkin Dhab (Cattle
Pond) for the benefit and utilization of village community and accordingly
dismissed the suit. The Trial Court even went on to record that since the property
in question was owned by the Gram Panchayat and was assigned a public purpose,
the defendants/respondents even would not be considered to be in exclusive
possession thereof.
Aggrieved thereof, the appellant/plaintiff filed first appeal, however
the same was dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court while maintaining the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
[4]. Impugning the aforesaid judgments and decrees passed by the Courts
below, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the
First Appellate Court went wrong while non-suiting the plaintiff/appellant while
recording that the plaintiff failed to prove his dispossession over the suit property
six months prior to the filing of suit in hand and, thus, his statutory remedy even
under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was wrongly held to be barred.
[4.1]. Learned Senior counsel further submits that as per the Local
Commissioner which was proved on record as Ex.P-1/A in addition to the site plan
attached thereto as Ex.PA/b, the exclusive possession of the plaintiff over the suit
land was duly proved, however the Courts below failed to appreciate the aforesaid
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045076
RSA No.1599 of 1991 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045076
fact in its proper perspective and, thus prays that the present appeal needs to be
allowed.
[5]. No one has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondents. I have
heard learned Senior counsel for the appellant and gone through the paper book. I
am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant.
[6]. In the present case concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the
Courts below to the effect that the suit property forms part of Khasra No.153
measuring 57 Kanals 10 Marlas which was undisputedly owned by the Gram
Panchayat, village Thiraj, Tehsil and District Sirsa. Ownership of the Gram
Panchayat over suit property was even admitted by the plaintiff himself while
appearing as PW-2. Furthermore the Courts below appreciated the report Ex.P-6 as
well as the site plan Ex.P/A, submitted by the Local Commissioner, who appeared
as PW-1, however, the same were rightly discarded, having recorded that tethering
cattle or placing of certain cow dung cakes here and there by the appellant-plaintiff
with one or two trees standing thereupon, in the absence of any overt act to exclude
others from use, the land in question cannot be termed to be in his exclusive
possession.
In view of law laid down by this Court in judgment reported as
1997(1) R.C.R. (Civil) Page 46 titled as 'Bhag Singh vs. Tej Singh' no illegality
or perversity can be found with the aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the Courts
below as regards non-reliance been placed upon by the Courts below on the
aforesaid report and the site plan prepared by the Local Commissioner, towards the
proof possession of the plaintiff-appellant over the suit property. Furthermore, no
grievance has been raised by either of the parties as regards ownership of the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045076
RSA No.1599 of 1991 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045076
property being vesting with Gram Panchayat of Village Thiraj, Tehsil and District
Sirsa and the same been kept reserved for the purpose of cattle pond.
[07]. Further, in the humble opinion of this Court, injunction is not to be
granted in favour of the appellant/plaintiff as regards the suit property, especially
the same being assigned public purpose for being used as cattle pond by the entire
village community. Even the Trial Court in para No.5 of its judgment has gone on
to record that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants can be considered to be in
exclusive possession of the disputed portion of the suit property which admittedly
is comprised in Khasra No.153 and is owned by Gram Panchayat, further the said
finding was never even assailed by the defendants/respondents even. Having said
that, and in view of the findings recorded by the Courts below, the Deputy
Commissioner, Sirsa is directed to look into the matter and in case the suit property
forming forming part of Khasra No.153 which is admitted owned by the Gram
Panchayat of village Thiraj, is in possession of any private individual without any
substantive right in his favour, proceedings in accordance with law regarding
dispossession be initiated at the earliest and the same be restored in favour of Gram
Panchayat.
[8]. In view of discussions made hereinabove, even no merit can be found
in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff as regards his remedy
of filing a suit for possession in terms of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, he
having failed to establish his possession over the suit land. Thus, finding no
illegality or perversity with the judgments passed by the Courts below, especially
there being no misreading of evidence or any material evidence having been
ignored, the present appeal is dismissed.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045076
RSA No.1599 of 1991 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045076
[9]. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
April 03, 2024 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
