Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ganga Singh vs Wassakha Singh on 8 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046902
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
103 2024:PHHC:046902
RSA-325-1994 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.04.2024
GANGA SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. ..Appellant
Versus
WASAKHA SINGH ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Mohit Giri, Advocate
for Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Sumit Sinha, Advocate
for respondent.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. This is defendant's regular second appeal against the concurrent
findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below while decreeing plaintiff's
suit for the grant of decree of declaration that he is owner in possession of
land comprised in Rectangle No.51, Khasra No.20. In the alternative, the
plaintiff prays for the grant of decree of possession. In short, the plaintiff
claims that he has been allotted land by the Central Government in lieu of
his land left in Pakistan and was put in possession, however, the defendant
has tried to interfere in his possession 20 prior to the filing of plaint.
2. The defendant while contesting the suit claimed that he has
already filed the suit in which temporary injunction has been granted and the
plaintiff is not owner of the property. Sh. Manjit Singh son of Sh.
Sukhmandar Singh is the owner by virtue of sale deed dated 12.06.1978
along with Sh. Jasbir Singh, Sh. Ranjit Singh and defendant along with Sh.
Sundar Singh and Sh. Jawala Singh are owners by virtue of sale deed dated
08.06.1967, executed by Smt. Jasbir Kaur. It was found by the Courts below
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046902
RSA-325-1994 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:046902
that the plaintiff withdrew the previous suit and the property in fact belongs
to Rehabilitation Department, which was allotted to the plaintiff vide
allotment letter Ex.P-7 and the possession was delivered to the plaintiff on
18.07.1984. In the revenue record, there was an entry in favour of the
defendant showing him to be in unauthorized possession.
3. The defendant filed first appeal, which has also been dismissed
by the First Appellate Court upon reappreciation of evidence. The Courts
below have also found that appellant has failed to prove that there was
fabrication of revenue record at the behest of the plaintiff. In the Jamabandi
for the year 1965-1966, Sh. Bachna and three others were recorded as
owners/mortgagers, who have created the first mortgage in favour of persons
belonging to Muslim faith, who migrated to Pakistan. Sh. Bachna and others
were shown to have redeemed the first mortgage vide mutation No.5255,
whereas, the second mortgage again in favour of Muslims was never
redeemed. Thus, the custodian succeeded to the equity of redemption created
in favour of the Muslims and no redemption of the mortgage has been
sought by the original owners or the transferees including the appellant.
4. The learned counsel representing the appellant though made
sincere attempt, however, failed to draw the attention of the Court to any
substantive error in the judgments passed by the Courts below.
5. Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.
6. Dismissed accordingly.
7. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
April 08th, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
