Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hukam Singh vs Hukam Chand on 10 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049794
RSA-802-1992 (O&M) 1 2024:PHHC:049794
144 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-802-1992 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.04.2024
Hukam Singh
....Appellant
Versus
Hukam Chand and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:- Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for respondent no.1
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
1. This is Regular Second Appeal filed by defendant no.1 in a
plaintiff's suit for the grant of decree for declaration with a
consequential relief of possession. In substance, the appellant prays for
setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate
Court.
2. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present
case, some relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
3. The plaintiff being the auction purchaser, pursuant to a
court auction, claims decree of declaration with a consequential relief of
possession. Their case is based upon their title. Defendant no.1 claims
that he is in settled possession for the last 30 years and therefore, he is
openly in possession to the knowledge of the plaintiff.
4. Though the plaintiff failed to lead appropriate evidence
before the trial court resulting in dismissal of the suit, however, before
the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff led evidence documents Ex.P-1 to
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049794
RSA-802-1992 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:049794
P-8 including auction proceedings, court order as well as the sale
certificate. The First Appellate Court, thus, accepted the appeal resulting
in decree in favour of the plaintiff.
5. The correctness of the judgment passed by the First
Appellate Court is challenged in this Regular Second Appeal. The
learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the possession of
the appellants is proved for the last 30 years and the plaintiffs have
failed to prove as to when they were delivered possession and
subsequently dispossessed.
6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel representing the parties.
7. The plaintiffs are owners by virtue of sale certificate issued
by the court. He is an auction purchaser. His suit is based on his title,
which is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Unless the
defendant proves that he is in adverse possession for more than 12 years,
before filing of the suit, the suit is within limitation. The limitation for
filing a suit for possession, based on title, begins to run from the date the
other party claims adverse possession. In this case, the defendant has
claimed that he is in open and continuous possession. However, he has
failed to prove as to when his possession became adverse. Moreover,
during all this while, the litigation was pending.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere
is made out.
9. Hence, dismissed.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049794
RSA-802-1992 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:049794
10. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
10.04.2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
