Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balbir Singh vs Mohinderjit Singh Etc on 23 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054808
RSA-480-1992 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:054808
RSA-481-1992 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
149
1. RSA-480-1992 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.04.2024
BALBIR SINGH ..Appellant
Versus
MOHINDERJIT SINGH AND ANR. ..Respondents
2. RSA-481-1992 (O&M)
BAKHSHISH SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. ..Appellant
Versus
MOHINDERJIT SINGH AND ANR. ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Priyanka Kansal, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties,
two connected appeals arising from two connected and similar suits shall
stand disposed of by this common order.
2. After having heard the learned counsel representing the parties,
this Court is of the view that the matter is required to be remitted back to the
First Appellate Court to decide the matter afresh. Hence, only relevant facts
are being noticed.
3. Sh. Gian Singh purchased the suit property for Rs.20,000/- in a
restricted auction held under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal)
Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the '1976 Act'). The plaintiff Sh. Balbir
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054808
RSA-480-1992 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:054808
RSA-481-1992 (O&M) -2-
Singh and Sh. Bakhshish Singh claim that Sh. Gian Singh entered into two
agreements to sell in their favour on 12.03.1982. The plaintiffs also claim
that they were in possession of the property as tenants under Sh. Gian Singh
five years before the alleged agreements to sell and they continued to be in
possession. As per the recital in the agreement to sell, the sale deed was to be
executed after the mutation in his favour was sanctioned in favour of Sh.
Gian Singh. On 18.08.1986, sale certificate was issued in favour of Sh. Gian
Singh by the Government and mutation was sanctioned on 26.08.1986. Two
suits for grant of decree of permanent injunction were filed by both the
plaintiffs i.e. Sh. Balbir Singh and Sh. Bakhshish Singh. Sh. Balbir Singh
plaintiff-appellant filed suit for permanent injunction against Sh. Gian Singh
on 04.09.1986, which was decreed on 16.10.1987. Consequently, on
13.01.1988, Sh. Gian Singh sold the land measuring 64 kanal and 13 marlas
in favour of Sh. Mohinderjit Singh (respondent No.1). Similarly, another sale
deed was executed in favour of Sh. Bakhshish Singh with respect to the
remaining land. In the year 1988, two suits were filed by Sh. Balbir Singh
and Sh. Bakhshish Singh for grant of decree of declaration that they are in
possession as prospective vendees on the basis of two agreements to sell
dated 12.03.1982. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that he has
become owner by virtue of sale deed. The trial Court decreed both the suits,
however, the first appeal filed by defendant No.2 in both the suits has been
allowed by the Court on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction as
per Rule 8 read with Section 16 of the 1976 Act.
4. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054808
RSA-480-1992 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:054808
RSA-481-1992 (O&M) -3-
5. This Court is of the opinion that the First Appellate Court has
erred in reversing the judgment of the trial Court on the ground that the Civil
Court has no jurisdiction particularly when Sh. Gian Singh never contested
the suit. The litigation is between Sh. Balbir Singh and Sh. Bakhshish Singh
on one hand and Sh. Mohinderjit Singh on the other hand. The question of
validity of allotment or its cancellation is not in dispute. Moreover, the trial
Court while identifying the issues involved in both the suits as settled the
following issues:-
"1. Whether defendant No.2 executed an agreement of
sale dated 12.03.1982 in favour of the plaintiff in respect
of the suit land? OPP
2. Whether defendant No.2 received Rs.10,000/- as
earnest money from the plaintiff vide agreement of sale
dated 12.03.1982? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff and his brother were in
possession of the suit land as tenants under defendant
No.2 prior to the execution of the agreement dated
12.03.1982 and thereafter the plaintiff is in possession as
prospective vendee? OPP
4. Whether the defendants are bound by the judgment and
decree dated 02.03.1987? OPP
5. Whether the alleged sale deed dated 13.01.1988 by
defendant No.2 is favour of defendant No.1 is illegal,
void and ineffective? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
declaration and injunction as prayed for? OPP
7. Whether the suit does not lie in the present form? OPD
8. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the
suit? OPD
9. whether defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit
land as owner? OPD
10. Relief."
6. The First Appellate Court has not adverted to any other issue
except issue No.8. The First Appellate Court is required to decide all the
issues, which arise between the parties. It was not correct on the part of the
First Appellate Court to decide the appeal only on one issue. Even if the First
Appellate Court was of the view that the suit was not maintainable before the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054808
RSA-480-1992 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:054808
RSA-481-1992 (O&M) -4-
Civil Court still the finding was required to be given on remaining issues
particularly when the trial Court had given a detailed judgment. As already
noticed, the real dispute between the parties is with regard to the competing
rights of the plaintiff on one hand and Sh. Mohinderjit Singh (defendant
No.1) on the other hand.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court is left with no
choice but to remit the matter back to the First Appellate Court to decide the
appeal afresh after hearing the parties.
8. Though, this order is being passed after a period of 34 years,
however, the scope of interference in regular second appeal is limited. The
First Appellate Court is a last Court for appreciation of facts and evidence.
9. This Court does not find it appropriate to hear these appeals as a
First Appellate Court.
10. With these observations both the appeals are disposed of. The
judgment passed by the First Appellate Court stands set aside.
11. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before
the First Appellate Court on 27.05.2024.
12. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
April 23rd, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
