(O&M)Tek Ram S/O Harphool vs Tek Ram S/O Mange Ram & Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 8362 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

(O&M)Tek Ram S/O Harphool vs Tek Ram S/O Mange Ram & Others on 22 April, 2024

Author: Pankaj Jain

Bench: Pankaj Jain

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054172




RSA No.278 of 1992 with                                                 1
XOBJ No.16-C of 1992


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA
                   AT CHANDIGARH


                          Reserved on 7th of March, 2024
                          Pronounced on 22nd of April, 2024

                          Regular Second Appeal No.278 of 1992 with
                          Cross objections No.16-C of 1992

Tek Ram son of Harphool                                         ....Appellant

                                        Versus


Tek Ram son of Mange Ram and others                          ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present :   Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for
            Mr. Jagdeep S. Rana, Advocate for the appellant.

            None for the cross-objectors/respondents.

PANKAJ JAIN, J.

Defendant is in appeal.

2. For convenience, the parties herein are being referred to by

their original position in the suit i.e. the appellant as defendant and the

respondents as plaintiffs.

3. Plaintiffs filed suit for possession of the suit property as

mentioned in the plaint claiming that their predecessor-in-interest

namely Mange Ram son of Chandgi was owner of the suit land. Mange

Ram during his lifetime along with plaintiffs constructed boundary wall

around the plot. However, a month prior to the institution of suit,

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054172

XOBJ No.16-C of 1992

defendant No.1 forcibly occupied the suit plot and constructed a kotha

thereon in addition to three khors. Suit was contested by defendant

No.1 claiming that construction was raised on the suit property by him

in the year 1966. Till then he has continuously occupied the plot

without interference from any quarter and thus has become owner of

the suit plot/property by way of adverse possession. Defendant claimed

in his written statement that Mange Ram agreed to sell the plot to him

and in pursuance thereof, he advanced him loan for an amount of

Rs.340/- which became Rs.644/- by Samvat 2022 i.e. 1965 as per the

Georgian Calendar. It was further claimed that in Samvat 2033 Mange

Ram obtained another sum of Rs.1100/- and a bahi entry was executed.

It has been thus contended that by way of oral agreement Mange Ram

delivered possession of the suit plot to defendant No.1 at the time of

securing initial amount of Rs.340/- as loan.

4. The Courts below held that since value of the suit land was

admittedly more than Rs.100/- the plea of oral contract of sale cannot

be looked into. So far as bahi entries Ex.D1 to D3 are concerned, the

same are not only pure loan transactions but also could not be proved to

have been executed by Mange Ram. Regarding the plea of construction

raised by the defendant is concerned, Trial Court found that the same

was raised only in January, 1984.

5. In appeal preferred by the defendant, Appellate Court found

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054172

XOBJ No.16-C of 1992

that compromise Exhibit D-4 stands proved and thus defendant was

entitled to get refund of Rs.12,000/- from Tek Ram plaintiff.

6. Counsel for the appellant-defendant while assailing the

impugned judgments, has argued that plaintiffs having filed suit for

possession were required to plead and prove that they were

dispossessed within 12 years of the institution of the suit. The plaintiffs

having failed to do so, Courts below ought to have dismissed the suit of

the plaintiffs. He further submits that once Panchayati agreement was

not denied by the plaintiffs in replication, compromise stood validly

proved and thus, First Appellate Court ought to have decreed the suit

on the basis of compromise.

7. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through

records of the case with their able assistance.

8. Both the Courts below after appreciating and analyzing the

evidence threadbare have come to the conclusion that the plea of

adverse possession raised by the appellant/defendant No.1 could not be

proved.

9. Plea raised by counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 that

it was for the plaintiffs to plead and prove that they were dispossessed

not before 12 years of the filing of the suit, is misplaced and deserved

to be rejected. Article 64 and Article 65 of the Limitation Act read as

under :

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054172

XOBJ No.16-C of 1992

Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run

64. For possession of immovable Twelve years. The date of dispossession.

property based on previous possession and not on title, when the plaintiff while in possession of the property has been dispossessed.

65. For possession of immovable Twelve years. When the possession of the property or any interest therein defendant becomes adverse to the based on title. plaintiff Explanation.--For the purposes of this article--

(a)where the suit is by a remainderman, a reversioner (other than a landlord) or a devisee, the possession of the defendant shall be deemed to become adverse only when the estate of the remainderman, reversioner or devisee, as the case may be, falls into possession;

(b) where the suit is by a Hindu or Muslim entitled to the possession of immovable property on the death of a Hindu or Muslim female, the possession of the defendant shall be deemed to become adverse only when the female dies;

(c)where the suit is by a purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree when the judgment-debtor was out of possession at the date of the sale, the purchaser shall be deemed to be a representative of the judgment-debtor who was out of possession.

10. In the present case, parties do not dispute that Mange Ram

was owner of the suit property. Plaintiffs assert their possession on the

basis of title being successors-in-interest of Mange Ram. Thus, the

present suit falls within the ambit of Article 65 and not Article 64.

Hence, the limitation of 12 years shall commence from the date when

the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiffs.

Thus, it was for the appellant/defendant to assert the date on which his

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054172

XOBJ No.16-C of 1992

possession became adverse to the rights of the plaintiffs and to further

show that the suit was filed beyond 12 years from the date of

commencement of adverse possession. In the present case, though the

defendant claimed his possession over the property since the year 1966

by raising construction, however, the Courts below have returned pure

finding of fact that the construction was new and was raised only in

January, 1984. Thus, the defendant miserably failed to prove that he

was in possession of the suit land beyond 12 years from the date his

possession became adverse to the plaintiffs.

11. Coming on the second plea raised by counsel for the

appellant/defendant w.r.t. there being a Panchayati compromise and the

plea that the suit ought to have been decreed in terms thereof, in the

considered opinion of this Court, the said compromise is admittedly

during the pendency of the suit and the same is a privileged document

under Section 23 of the Evidence Act which cannot be relied upon by

the defendant to plead admission on part of the plaintiffs. He cannot

claim any other benefit apart from the restitution which has been

granted by the Appellate Court. Thus, lower Appellate Court has

rightly held him entitled for refund of any amount that was paid under

the agreement by the appellant to the plaintiffs.

12. In view of pure findings of fact recorded in favour of the

plaintiffs and as a sequel of discussion held hereinabove, this Court

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054172

XOBJ No.16-C of 1992

does not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is ordered to

be dismissed.

13. Since none appeared for cross-objectors, no order is

warranted on the cross-objections. The same are dismissed for non-

prosecution.

April 22, 2024                                       (PANKAJ JAIN)
Dpr                                                      JUDGE
           Whether speaking/reasoned         :      Yes
           Whether reportable                :      Yes




                              6 of 6