Punjab-Haryana High Court
Leelu Ram vs Suraj Bhan And Ors on 29 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
RSA No.1257 of 2021 -1- 2024:PHHC:057520
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
109 RSA No.1257 of 2021
Reserved on : 26.04.2024
Date of Decision : 29.04.2024
Leelu Ram ....Appellant
VERSUS
Suraj Bhan and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Kulwant Singh Dhanora, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff No.1-
appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2015 passed by
the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2020 passed by the
First Appellate Court.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that the plaintiff
No.1-appellant alongwith proforma respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein filed a suit
for declaration to the effect that they alongwith their sisters (proforma
respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein) were owners in possession of the land
measuring 32 kanals being 640/1147 share out of the total land measuring 57
kanals 07 marlas comprised in Khewat No.469 Khatauni Nos.663-664 as per
Jamabandi for the year 2005-06 situated in village Shahpur, Tehsil and
District Hisar. It was averred in the suit that the father of plaintiff No.1-
appellant and proforma respondent Nos.3 to 8 herein, namely, Harphul and
father of defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2, namely, Mani Ram, were real
integrity of this order/judgment
RSA No.1257 of 2021 -2- 2024:PHHC:057520
brothers and both have since expired. It was further the case set up that Mani
Ram and Harphul had purchased the land measuring 57 kanals 07 marlas out
of which 32 kanals was purchased by Harphul and 25 kanals 07 marlas was
purchased by Mani Ram and they were owners in possession of their
respective shares. After the death of Harphul the plaintiff No.1-appellant and
proforma respondent Nos.3 to 8 herein were owners in possession of their
share i.e. 32 kanals of land and were also paying nehri abhiyana of land
measuring 32 kanals. It was further averred that Mani Ram, father of the
defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2, by playing fraud had got registered sale
deed bearing No.3057 dated 30.09.1957 to the extent of equal share and had
also got entered the same in the mutation. It was further the case that the
plaintiff No.1-appellant and proforma respondent Nos.3 to 8 herein came to
know about the wrong recital in the sale deed and in the revenue record on
receipt of notice of partition proceedings and hence the present suit. On
notice the defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written
statement raising preliminary objections of locus standi, cause of action and
limitation. On merits it was averred that Harphul and Mani Ram had
purchased 57 kanals 07 marlas of land in equal shares from their vendor
Madan Lal vide sale deed No.3057 dated 30.09.1957 and accordingly
mutation No.944 dated 26.08.1958 was sanctioned in favour of Harphul and
Mani Ram and after their death the plaintiff No.1-appellant and proforma
respondent Nos.3 to 8 herein were owners to the extent of half share and the
defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 were owners to the extent of half share of
the land measuring 57 kanals 07 marlas.
3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the following issues
were framed by the Trial Court :
integrity of this order/judgment
RSA No.1257 of 2021 -3- 2024:PHHC:057520
1. Whether the plaintiff and proforma defendants no.3
to 5, are owner in possession of the suit land as
mentioned in the head note of the plaint ? OPP
2. Whether the impugned mutation entered in
jamabandi on the basis of sale deed No.3057 dated
30.09.1957 in favour of the defendants no.1 and 2, is not
binding on the rights of plaintiff and proforma
defendants ? OPP
3. Whether the defendants are liable to be restrained
from possessing, interfering, selling and transferring the
peaceful possession of plaintiff in any manner, as
alleged ? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause
of action to file the present suit ? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the
present suit by his own act and conduct ? OPD
6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred ?
OPD
7. Relief.
4. The Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree
dated 04.11.2015. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred only by
the plaintiff No.1-appellant which appeal was also dismissed vide judgment
and decree dated 13.02.2020. Hence, the present regular second appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff No.1-appellant would contend
that both the Courts have erred in dismissing his suit which infact ought to
have been decreed. It is submitted that Harphul had purchased 32 kanals of
integrity of this order/judgment
RSA No.1257 of 2021 -4- 2024:PHHC:057520
land and Mani Ram by playing a fraud had got registered the sale deed
bearing No.3057 dated 30.09.1957 to the extent of equal shares and also got
entered the mutation that both Harphul and Mani Ram were owners to the
extent of half share each. It is further the contention that the plaintiff No.1-
appellant and proforma respondent Nos.3 to 8 have been in possession of
their share of the property i.e. 32 kanals and have also been paying nehri
abhiyana.
6. Heard.
7. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court found that
the suit land was purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff
No.1-appellant and the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-respondent
Nos.1 and 2 to the extent of equal shares vide the sale deed which was
produced on the record as Ex.D1. Accordingly, mutation was also entered on
the basis of the said sale deed dated 30.09.1957. The argument of learned
counsel for the plaintiff No.1-appellant that 32 kanals of land was purchased
by Harphul is belied by the sale deed itself which was executed on
30.09.1957. The said sale deed was executed by Harphul on his own behalf
and on behalf of Mani Ram. During his life-time the said sale deed was
never challenged by him. There is not an iota of evidence on the record to
even remotely suggest that there was any other arrangement barring as
mentioned in the sale deed dated 30.09.1957. Learned counsel for the
plaintiff No.1-appellant has not been able to convince this Court that
Harphul had purchased 32 kanals of land and that Mani Ram had only
purchased 25 kanals 07 marlas of land since the same is totally contrary to
the contents of the sale deed (Ex.D1). In the absence of any evidence, both
integrity of this order/judgment
RSA No.1257 of 2021 -5- 2024:PHHC:057520
the Courts have rightly non-suited the plaintiff No.1-appellant. No other
point was argued.
8. 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 )
29.04.2024 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment
