Punjab-Haryana High Court
Basanti Devi vs Bhagwan And Another on 15 January, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
107 2024:PHHC:005165
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.5392 of 2019 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 15.01.2024
Basanti Devi .....Appellant
versus
Dr. Shri Bhagwan and Another .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the appellant
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral):
CM-15316-C-2019:
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 6 days in
filing the appeal is condoned.
CM disposed off.
CM-15315-C-2019:
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 20 days in
re-filing the appeal is condoned.
CM disposed off.
RSA-5392-2019:
1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant
challenging the judgments and decrees dated 28.03.2018 and 24.04.2019
passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, respectively.
authenticity of this order/judgment
2024:PHHC:005165
2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
appellant herein filed a suit for permanent injunction on the ground that she
was owner in possession of House No.104-A measuring 86.23 square yards
situated at Kartarpura, Rohtak, bounded as under :
East : 12' 5" Street
West : 20' 4" + 9" Street
North : 14' 8" +29' 3" Street
South : 14' 7" + 7' + 30' 8" House of Sh. Devi Lal
It was further averred that the plaintiff-appellant had purchased the said
house from one Roop Lal son of Gurmukh resident of Kartarpura, Rohtak
vide Sale Deed No.6884 dated 09.10.2013. It was further the averment that
the defendant-respondents had been threatening to interfere in the possession
of the plaintiff-appellant and were trying to dispossess her from the same
and that they had no right or title to interfere in her possession. Hence, the
suit for permanent injunction.
3. On notice, the defendant No.1-respondent appeared and filed
his written statement raising preliminary objections regarding
maintainability, cause of action and the plaintiff-appellant not having
approached the Court with clean hands. On merits, it was stated that the
plaintiff-appellant is neither owner nor in possession of House No.104-A
measuring 86.23 square yards situated at Kartarpura, Rohtak as alleged. The
dimensions of the house as given in the plaint were also stated to be
incorrect. It was further stated that the site-plan was also incorrect. Further,
the stand taken by the defendant-respondent No.1 was that he is the owner
authenticity of this order/judgment
2024:PHHC:005165
and in physical possession of House No.105/2, Kartarpura, Rohtak
measuring 90.37 square yards, bounded as under :
East : 12'-0" Gali
West : 20'-6" Gali
North : 44'-1-1/2" Gali
South : 14'-2" + 36'-6" House of Devi Lal and Rup Lal
The said house was purchased vide Sale Deed No.8812 after paying the sale
consideration. It was further averred that electricity connection, record of
assessment of house tax of Municipal Committee, Rohtak, water connection,
sewerage connection and site plan sanctioned by the Municipal Committee,
Rohtak are all in the name of wife of defendant-respondent No.1 and that
there is no property in existence bearing House No.104-A at the spot.
Replication was filed reiterating the stand taken in the plaint. From the
pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent
injunction, as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the
present form? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus
standi to file the present suit? OPD
4. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of
necessary parties? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with
clean hands and has suppressed true and material facts?
OPD
authenticity of this order/judgment
2024:PHHC:005165
6. Relief.
4. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence
led came to the conclusion that there was no documentary evidence on the
record to show that House No.104-A existed at the spot. The plaint was
accordingly dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.03.2018 as the
plaintiff failed to prove her case. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree
an appeal was preferred which was also dismissed by the First Appellate
Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.04.2019.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that
both the Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-
appellant and that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that
House No.104-A was in existence. The learned counsel has further relied
upon the Local Commissioner's Report to contend that the Local
Commissioner in his report had stated that House No.104-A was in a
dilapidated condition and it was found locked at that point of time.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant.
7. In the present case, PW1-Ravinder, Clerk had stated in his
cross-examination that no order qua House No.104-A had been passed in the
Assessment Year 2001-2002. The property bearing No.105/2 had been
transferred by Badam Singh in favour of wife of the defendant-respondent
No.1 and as per the order of the DMC an entry was made in this regard on
10.01.2014, but no entry regarding Plot No.104-A was incorporated in any
municipal record. It was further held by the First Appellate Court that the
authenticity of this order/judgment
2024:PHHC:005165
learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant was unable to explain as to why
no entry was made in favour of the plaintiff-appellant when she claimed
ownership on the basis of a registered sale deed. Before the First Appellate
Court the counsel for the plaintiff-appellant had taken a plea that no notice
was given by the Local Commissioner before preparing the report,
Ex.PW8/B. However, no objections were filed to the said report.
8. It is pertinent to note that defendant-respondent No.1 had
produced on record statement of Harish Kumar, ZTO, Municipal Committee
Rohtak in a contempt proceeding as Ex.D1. In the said statement, he
disclosed that an enquiry had been conducted against Jaswant Singh, Tax
Superintendent as per order dated 24.09.2014. Rajiv Vij, Building Inspector,
Municipal Committee, Rohtak had also appeared as witness in those
proceedings. In his statement, Ex.D2, which was produced on record, he had
stated that defendant-respondent No.1 had got the site-plan qua Plot No.105,
Kartarpura, Rohtak passed from the Municipal Committee. The said site-
plan was produced on the record as Ex.D3. The order dated 24.09.2014 was
also produced on record as Ex.D4 wherein it was found that in the enquiry
against Jaswant Singh, Tax Superintendent he had illegally and
unauthorisedly added unit No.104-A between the unit Nos.104 and 105,
whereas, the owners of unit Nos.104 and 105 were in continuous occupation
of their respective portions and no unit bearing No.104-A was in existence at
the spot. It has further been held by the First Appellate Court that the said
documents were not disputed by the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff-
appellant has further failed to prove the title of the vendor Roop Lal.
authenticity of this order/judgment
2024:PHHC:005165
9. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present
appeal. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises in
the present appeal. The same being devoid of any merit is accordingly
dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
15.01.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
parkash JUDGE
NOTE:
Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
authenticity of this order/judgment
