Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baldev Singh vs Kewal Singh And Ors on 12 August, 2024
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105889
[122] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM-7444-C-2024 and
CM-5798-C-2019 in/and
RSA-2151-2019
Date of Decision : 12.08.2024
Baldev Singh ...Appellant
versus
Kewal Singh and others ....Respondents
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. Sukhjit Singh, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.
***
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
CM-7444-C-2024
This is an application filed by the applicant-appellant, seeking
restoration of RSA-2151-2019 to its original number.
For the reasons, as are mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed. Order dated 18.07.2024, dismissing the RSA-2151-2019 for non-
prosecution is recalled.
RSA-2151-2019 is restored to its original number and taken up
on Board today itself.
CM-5798-C-2019
This is an application filed by the applicant-appellant for
condonation of delay of 46 days in re-filing the appeal.
For the reasons, as are mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed and delay of 46 days in re-filing of the appeal is condoned.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105889
CM-7444-C-2024 and -2-
CM-5798-C-2019 in/and
RSA-2151-2019
RSA-2151-2019
[1] Plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved of the judgment and
decree passed by the Appellate Court, Ludhiana, dated 25.05.2018,
affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Jagraon dated 03.11.2015.
[2] Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are
owners in possession of equal share of suit land as detailed in the head-note
of the plaint and that defendant Nos.1 & 2 are owners in possession of the
other share and further that the partition proceedings initiated by defendant
Nos.1 & 2 have no binding effect on the rights of the plaintiffs. The claim of
the plaintiffs was based upon an oral exchange i.e. claimed to have taken
place in the year 1976 followed by delivery of possession between the
parties.
[3] Suit was contested by defendant Nos.1 & 2, who raised
preliminary objection with respect to the maintainability of the suit as the
same was simplicitor suit for declaration. On merits, oral exchange was
denied and it was claimed that parties to the lis being co-sharers have been in
joint possession of the entire land.
[4] On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed
the following issues:-
"1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of
declaration as prayed for? OPP
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105889
CM-7444-C-2024 and -3-
CM-5798-C-2019 in/and
RSA-2151-2019
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable?
OPD
3. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action to
file the present suit? OPD
5. Relief. "
[5] While returning finding on issue No.1, Courts below came to
the conclusion that there was no evidence to prove oral exchange between
the parties and as per the revenue record proved on record, it is evident that
the parties are still joint owners of the suit land and the possession on any
part of the land if any, was for the purpose of cultivation only as revenue
record is totally bereft of any factum with respect to the partition
proceedings available with the parties.
[6] Findings recorded by the trial Court stand affirmed by the lower
Appellate Court. Hence, this appeal.
[7] Mr. Sukhjit Singh, counsel for the appellant, while assailing the
judgments passed by the Courts below submits that once it was proved on
record that the parties were in possession of the respective share,
presumption of jointness between them stood rebutted and the Courts below
erred in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
[8] I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have
carefully gone through the records of the case.
[9] The entire suit of the plaintiffs is based upon an oral exchange
stated to have taken place around year 1976.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105889
CM-7444-C-2024 and -4-
CM-5798-C-2019 in/and
RSA-2151-2019
[10] Pure finding of facts have been recorded by the Courts below
that the plaintiffs failed to prove the same and revenue records in form of
jamabandis i.e. the record of title having presumption of truth attached with
it, still records both the parties to be co-sharers. There being no fact of
partition inter se between the parties recorded in the revenue record,
appellants were not entitled for decree of declaration to the effect that
owners in possession of separate parts of the land and that the partition
proceedings initiated by defendant Nos.1 & 2 have no binding effect.
[11] Mr. Sukhjit Singh, counsel for the plaintiffs is not in a position
to dispute that so far as revenue record is concerned, the same neither
records the fact of the alleged oral exchange nor the partition between the
parties to the lis. Both the parties are still recorded to be joint owners in the
revenue record.
[12] In view thereof, this Court does not find any reason to interfere
in the pure findings of fact recorded by the Courts below.
[13] Dismissed.
(PANKAJ JAIN)
JUDGE
12.08.2024
'R. Sharma'
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
