Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamla Devi vs Subhash Chand Etc on 26 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:057488
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
227 RSA No.2774 of 1997
Date of Decision : 26.04.2024
Kamla Devi ....Appellant
VERSUS
Subhash Chand (deceased) through LRs and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal pertains to the year 1997 and has been listed
for motion hearing as per the standing instructions being 25 years old appeal.
As per the office report, the counsel for the parties have duly been informed.
However, as noticed in the order dated 21.12.2023, though counsel for the
appellant undertook to get service of the respondents effected through dasti
process yet the appellant nor his counsel did not collect the dasti notices. For
the reasons to follow, the presence of the respondents would not be required.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant-
appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.10.1993 passed by
the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 01.04.1997 passed by the
First Appellate Court.
3. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that a suit for
possession was filed by the plaintiff - Amar Nath - for possession of land
measuring 07 marlas against the defendant - Kamla Devi. It was averred in
integrity of this order/judgment
RSA No.2774 of 1997 -2- 2024:PHHC:057488
the plaint that the land was previously owned by the Central Government
and that the plaintiff-respondent purchased land measuring 11 marlas from
the Central Government and deposited the requisite amount. The land of the
defendant-appellant is adjoining the land of the plaintiff-respondent towards
the eastern side. It was further averred that the defendant-appellant had
encroached upon 07 marlas of land of the plaintiff-respondent asserting
herself to being the owner of the same in which the plaintiff-respondent had
planted trees and also constructed a bathroom and had installed a hand-
pump. On notice the defendant-appellant appeared and filed the written
statement taking the preliminary objection qua locus standi and that the
plaintiff-respondent was never in possession of the suit land. On merits, it
was admitted that the suit property was in the ownership of the Central
Government. It was further stated that the defendant-appellant was in
possession of the suit land for the last 30 years and that the revenue record
was incorrect. Replication was not filed.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues
were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for the
possession of the suit land ? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable
in its present form ? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the
present suit ? OPD
integrity of this order/judgment
RSA No.2774 of 1997 -3- 2024:PHHC:057488
4. Whether the site plan filed by the plaintiff is
incorrect ? OPD
5. Whether the civil court has got no jurisdiction to
try the present suit ? OPD
6. Relief.
5. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.1993
decreed the suit on the ground that Ex.P1 shows that the plaintiff-respondent
had purchased 11 marlas of land from the Central Government. Further
reliance was placed on the report of the Local Commissioner dated
22.10.1991 (Ex.P3) wherein it was stated by the Local Commissioner,
namely, Duni Chand, that the defendant-appellant was in illegal possession
of 03 marlas of land in which the plaintiff-respondent had planted trees and
also constructed a bathroom and had installed a hand-pump. It was found
that the signatures of both the parties were very much there on Ex.P3 i.e. the
report of the Local Commissioner. The revenue record also supported the
case of the plaintiff-respondent. It was further found that though the stand
taken by the defendant-appellant was that she had been in possession of the
suit property for 30 years, however, the same was not tenable in the absence
of any evidence. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the
Trial Court an appeal was preferred by the defendant-appellant which appeal
was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 01.04.1997.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the
judgments and decrees of both the Courts are illegal and erroneous and
infact the suit of the plaintiff-respondent deserved to be dismissed. It is
integrity of this order/judgment
RSA No.2774 of 1997 -4- 2024:PHHC:057488
contended that the defendant-appellant has been in possession of the suit
land and that she has constructed a house on the suit land.
7. Heard.
8. In the present case both the Courts concurrently found that vide
Ex.P1 the plaintiff-respondent had purchased 11 marlas of land from the
Central Government. The report of the Local Commissioner (Ex.P3) clearly
shows that the defendant-appellant was in illegal possession of 03 marlas of
land. The said report was prepared in the presence of both the parties and
also bore their signatures. The revenue record also supported the case of the
plaintiff-respondent. The stand taken by the defendant-appellant that she has
been in possession of the suit land for the last 30 years was not substantiated
by any evidence. Even before this Court learned counsel for the defendant-
appellant has not been able to show an iota of evidence to even remotely
suggest that the defendant-appellant has been in possession of 03 marlas of
land qua which the suit has been decreed. No other point was argued.
9. In view of the above, no question of law much less any
substantial question of law, arises for determination in the present case. The
present appeal being devoid of any merits is accordingly dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
26.04.2024 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment
