Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sham Sunder vs Mc Hissar on 24 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055301
RSA-3033-1994 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:055301
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
106
RSA-3033-1994 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.04.2024
SHAM SUNDER ..Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, HISSAR ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate
and Mr. Nischal Chetanya Manchanda, Advocate
for respondent.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. The plaintiff has filed this regular second appeal assailing the
correctness of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, which in
turn has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
2. The plaintiff has also filed an application under Order XLI Rule
27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in order to produce the judgment
passed by the Civil Court on 05.11.1999 as additional evidence, which in
appeal has been upheld by the First Appellate Court on 16.02.2001.
3. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
4. The plaintiff filed the suit claiming the decree of permanent
injunction restraining the Municipal Committee, Hisar from converting the
land into a path or raising any construction on plots No.15, 16, 17, 27 and
28, situated at the Mahavir Colony, Hisar. In substance, the plaintiff's case is
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055301
RSA-3033-1994 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:055301
that his father Sh. Jagan Nath purchased the property by virtue of sale deed
dated 29.07.1968 from Sh. Ram Prakash etc. The defendant while contesting
the suit claimed that the property is a public property and the plaintiff has no
right, title or interest in the same. It was also stated that Sh. Jagan Nath never
owned the disputed plots. The trial Court decreed the suit, however, the First
Appellate Court upon reappreciation of evidence recorded a finding of fact
that the plaintiff has failed to prove the title of Sh. Ram Prakash etc. i.e. the
vendor of Sh. Jagan Nath. Thus, the judgment of the trial Court was
reversed.
5. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook along
with the scanned copy of the requisitioned record.
6. The learned counsel representing the appellant has made the
following submissions:-
i. The plaintiff's title was never in dispute and hence, he
was not required to prove the title of Sh. Jagan Nath's
vendor.
ii. In two judgments passed in civil suit titled as Sham
Sunder Vs. Hari Singh, it has been held that the plaintiff
is the owner of the property in dispute.
7. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the parties.
8. It may be noted here that while replying to para 1 of the plaint,
the Municipal Committee has stated that the plaintiff or his predecessor Sh.
Jagan Nath are neither owners nor in possession of the disputed property.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055301
RSA-3033-1994 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:055301
9. Issue No.1 framed by the trial Court reads as under:-
"1. Whether plaintiff is owner in possession of suit land
(plot No.15/16/17/27/28 in Mahabir Colony, Hisar?
OPP"
10. Thus, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove the title of his
vendor. The sale deed only shows that there was some transfer of rights by
Sh. Ram Prakash etc. in favour of Sh. Jagan Nath, however, in order to prove
transfer of title, it was for the plaintiff to prove that Sh. Ram Prakash had any
right, title or interest in the property. In civil law, it is necessary for the
plaintiff to prove the title of his vendor, if he claims the property by virtue of
sale deed executed in his name by another person.
11. With reference to the additional evidence, it may be noted that
the Municipal Committee was never a party. Hence, the aforesaid judgment
shall not bind the Municipal Committee. In any case, the suit was filed by
the plaintiff against regular encroacher, which was decreed. However, that
alone is not sufficient to hold that the plaintiff's vendor had a title.
12. Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.
13. Dismissed accordingly.
14. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
April 24th, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
