Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sucha Singh vs Chaman Lal And Ors on 9 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:048538
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
203 RSA-207-1995 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 09.04.2024
SUCHA SINGH .... Appellant
VERSUS
CHAMAN LAL & ORS. .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Gurmeet Singh Saini, Advocate for
Mr. S.C. Chhabbra, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Arshdeep, Advocate for the respondents.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the
defendant-appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.09.1994
passed by the First Appellate Court.
2. The brief fact relevant to the present case are that the plaintiff-
respondents herein filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are the
owners of plot (old) Nos.25, 26 measuring 8 marlas comprised in Rect.
No.208 Killa No.1/8(0-8) situated in Braham Nagri, Ferozepur City. On
notice, the defendant-appellant appeared and filed written statement. The
case set up by the defendant-appellant was that he had purchased plot
Nos.21, 22 and 17 and that the sale deeds in respect of those plots was
Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. The defendant-appellant never staked any claim on plot
Nos.25 and 26. The Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree
dated 14.11.1991 on the ground that there was no demarcation of the plots.
Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-respondents.
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:048538
203 RSA-207-1995 (O&M) -2-
Vide judgment and decree dated 27.09.1994 the appeal was allowed and the
First Appellate Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents holding
them to be the owners of the plots in dispute i.e. plot (old) Nos.25 and 26
and that there were entitled to get possession over the same. Hence, the
present regular second appeal by the defendant-appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant would contend that
the defendant-appellant has not staked any claim on plot Nos.25 and 26.
However, their claim is qua plot Nos.21, 22 and 17. Learned counsel would
further contend that the only grievance of the defendant-appellant is that his
possession over the said plots be protected.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents has
contended that the appeal has been allowed only qua plot Nos.25 and 26 as
filed by the plaintiff-respondents and that no order has been passed qua plot
Nos.21, 22 and 17.
5. Heard.
6. In the present case the grievance of the defendant-appellant is
that his possession over plot Nos.21, 22 and 17 be protected. A perusal of
the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts would reveal that no
counter-claim was filed by the defendant-appellant qua the properties being
plot Nos.21, 22 and 17. However, it was stated in the written statement that
the defendant-appellant was the owner of the said plots on the basis of the
sale deeds. There is no adjudication by both the Courts below on the issue of
his ownership. In view thereof the apprehension of the learned counsel for
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:048538
203 RSA-207-1995 (O&M) -3-
the defendant-appellant that the possession of the defendant-appellant over
the plots would be interfered on the basis of the judgment and decree passed
by the First Appellate Court is totally baseless. The First Appellate Court has
merely decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents qua plot Nos.25 and 26
on which admittedly the defendant-appellant has no right, title or interest.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the present
appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises
in the present case. The regular second appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
09.04.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this judgment/order.
