Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Anokhi vs Amar Singh on 31 January, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013074
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
105 2024:PHHC:013074
RSA-1335-1992 (O&M)
Date of decision: 31.01.2024
ANOKHI ..Appellant
Versus
AMAR SINGH & ORS. ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate
for respondents.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. In this regular second appeal, the plaintiff assails the
correctness of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below
while dismissing her suit for grant of decree of possession. She filed a suit
claiming to be an owner of the property. She also claimed that the
defendants filed a previous suit claiming ownership by way of adverse
possession, which was dismissed on 19.12.1980, which in appeal was
affirmed by the judgment dated 04.01.985. The regular second appeal filed
by the defendants was also dismissed.
2. The defendant while contesting the case submitted that in fact
the plaintiff sold the land to them on 25.06.1963 by virtue of an agreement
on payment of the entire sale consideration of Rs.537 and 8 anna.
3. Both the Courts on appreciation of evidence dismissed the suit
after recording findings of fact that the defendants are entitled to protect
their possession in part performance of the agreement to sell under Section
53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the
'1882 Act').
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013074
2024:PHHC:013074
RSA-1335-1992 (O&M) -2-
4. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.
5. The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that the
defendants are debarred from protecting their possession under Section 53A
of the 1882 Act particularly when their previous suit claiming title on the
basis of adverse possession has been dismissed. He submits that in the
previous suit, the defendants, who were the plaintiffs in the previous suit,
never claimed protection under Section 53A of the 1882 Act.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the
respondents submits that in the previous suit, the plaintiffs claimed that the
possession of the defendants is pursuant to the agreement to sell and
therefore, they are not entitled to a decree of declaration that they have
become owner by way of adverse possession. He submits that the aforesaid
plea of the appellant was accepted and the previous suit filed by the
defendants was partly dismissed though they were granted a decree of
permanent injunction protecting their possession except in due course of law.
He submits that once the plaintiff has claimed that the defendants possession
was pursuant to the agreement to sell, which resulted in dismissal of their
suit, the defendants are entitled to protect their possession under Section
53A of the 1882 Act. Despite the repeated requests to the learned counsel
representing the appellant, he failed to draw the attention of the Court to any
statutory provision, which debars the defendants from protecting their
possession under Section 53A of the 1882 Act in the subsequent suit. In any
case, in the previous suit, the Court refused to grant a decree of declaration
with respect to their ownership to defendants (who were plaintiffs in the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013074
2024:PHHC:013074
RSA-1335-1992 (O&M) -3-
previous suit) on the ground that if they possess the land by virtue of the
agreement to sell then they are entitled to claim protection under Section
53A of the 1882 Act.
7. Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.
8. Dismissed accordingly.
9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
January 31st, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:013074
3 of 3
