Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balbir Singh And Others vs Sandeep And Others on 18 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052341
RSA-5402-2019(O&M) 2024:PHHC:052341
RSA-1250-2023(O&M) 1
158 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision:18.04.2024
1. RSA-5402-2019(O&M)
Balbir Singh and others ...Appellants
Vs.
Sandeep and others ...Respondents
2. RSA-1250-2023(O&M)
Amar Singh (deceased) through Lrs
and others ...Appellants
Vs.
Sandeep and others ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate
for the appellants.
None for the respondents.
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)
CM-4661-C-2023 in RSA-1250-2023
1. This application has been filed under Section 151 CPC for
condoning of delay of 120 days in filing the appeal.
2. In view of the grounds taken in the application, delay of 120
days in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. Civil Miscellaneous Application is allowed.
Main case
1. With the consent of the learned counsel representing the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052341
RSA-5402-2019(O&M) 2024:PHHC:052341
appellants, these two connected regular second appeals arising from a
common judgment passed by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court shall stand disposed of by this common order.
2. While filing the suit for grant of decree of possession as
well as permanent injunction, the plaintiffs claim that their predecessor
Mandroop Singh purchased the suit land from Karan son of Jeeta vide
sale deed dated 08.02.1971. It is case of the plaintiffs that the defendants
have encroached upon some part of the property by constructing a
temporary shed. The defendants while contesting the suit also filed a
counter-claim claiming that Mandroop Singh has sold the property in
their favour by an oral sale for consideration of Rs. 1,100/- and in the
alternative, they should be declared owners by way of adverse
possession.
3. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have
decreed the suit. Though, the First Appellate Court has modified the
decree while directing the defendants to remove the structure and hand
over the possession to the plaintiffs.
4. Heard the learned counsel representing the appellants at
length and with his able assistance perused the paper-book.
5. Learned counsel representing the appellants submits that the
possession on the part of the defendants is admitted by PW1-Sandeep.
He further submits that the possession of the defendants is very old and
therefore, they have become owner by way of an adverse possession.
6. This Court has considered the submission.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052341
RSA-5402-2019(O&M) 2024:PHHC:052341
7. The plaintiffs while filing the suit have themselves stated
that the defendants have encroached upon some part of the disputed land
by constructing a temporary shed. For this reason the prayer for grant of
possession was also made. Hence, the admission of PW1-Sandeep, will
not have any impact on the plaintiffs' case.
8. The next argument of the learned counsel is also not
sustainable because the defendants/appellants are required to prove as to
when their possession became open, hostile and adverse to the world.
Moreover, it is the case of the appellants that they are in possession of
the property pursuant to oral sale. In such circumstances, both the pleas
of the defendants are contradictory.
9. Both the Courts below have already appreciated the
evidence and the learned counsel representing the appellants failed to
draw the attention of the Court to any substantive error on account of
mis-leading or non-leading of the evidence.
10. Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.
11. Dismissed.
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
18.04.2024 JUDGE
neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
3 of 3
