Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pala Ram vs Balwant Singh (Since Deceased) Through ... on 16 January, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
RSA No.100 of 2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:005056
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
129 RSA No.100 of 2024 (O&M)
Reserved on: 11.01.2024
Date of Decision: 16.01.2024
Pala Ram ....Appellant
VERSUS
Balwant Singh (since deceased) through LRs and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant
against the judgments and decrees dated 22.02.2017 and 16.11.2023 passed
by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court respectively.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-
respondent Nos.2 and 3 from carving out any land to be given to defendant-
respondent No.1 in partition out of the suit land in Khasra Nos.168 and 169.
In the plaint it was averred that the plaintiff-appellant along with his mother
Smt. Sukhdevi and brothers, namely, Suresh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar
were absolute owners in possession of the land. It was further averred that
the land measuring 15 kanals 11 marlas, as described in para 1 of the plaint,
was taken in exchange by the father of the plaintiff, namely, Ajmer Singh
from defendant-respondent No.1 - Balwant Singh - and in lieu of the said
integrity of this order/judgment.
RSA No.100 of 2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:005056
exchange, land measuring 19 kanals 14 marlas situated at village Panwa,
Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra was given to defendant-respondent
No.1. In this regard a judgment and decree dated 27.04.1994 was also passed
by the Sub Judge, Kurukshetra. It was further averred that the partition
proceedings had been initiated against the plaintiff-appellant and other co-
owners qua the partition of total land measuring 58 kanals 4 marlas as
described in para 5 of the plaint. It was further the averment that the
defendant-respondent No.1 in collusion with the revenue officials i.e.
defendant-respondent Nos.2 and 3 was bent upon getting the land of his
share out of the suit land which was given in exchange by defendant-
respondent No.1 to the plaintiff-appellant and his family and in which they
were in actual physical possession. The Trial Court held the suit to be not
maintainable. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2017 an
appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court
vide judgment and decree dated 16.11.2023. Hence, the present Regular
Second Appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has vehemently
contended that the defendant-respondent No.1 had exchanged his land with
the father of the plaintiff-appellant and that the plaintiff-appellant and his
family were in possession of the suit land after the exchange and in this
regard a judgment and decree was passed on 27.04.1994 and hence the suit
ought to have been decreed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has
further argued that the Trial Court while dismissing the suit on the ground of
maintainability has also recorded the findings on merits, which is contrary to
settled law.
integrity of this order/judgment.
RSA No.100 of 2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:005056
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. In the present case admittedly the partition proceedings are
pending before the Court of Assistant Collector IInd Grade and both the
Courts below have concurrently found that all the pleas taken herein could
have well been taken before the concerned Revenue Court. Section 158 of
the Punjab Land Revenue Act, l887 (as applicable to the State of Haryana)
also bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Though learned counsel for the
plaintiff-appellant has argued that since there was a judgment and decree in
favour of the father of the plaintiff-appellant qua the exchange of the land
hence the suit ought to have been decreed, this cannot be accepted inasmuch
as it would always be open to the plaintiff-appellant to raise all the pleas
taken herein before the concerned Revenue Court where admittedly
proceedings are pending. The argument raised by learned counsel for the
plaintiff-appellant that while dismissing the case on maintainability
observations have also been made on merits and that the observations would
come in his way before the Revenue Court, merits consideration in view of
the fact that the present suit is not maintainable being specifically barred
under Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, l887 (as applicable to
the State of Haryana) as also the fact that it would always be open to the
plaintiff-appellant to raise all the pleas taken herein before the concerned
Revenue Court.
6. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is disposed
off while upholding the findings given by the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court. However, it is made clear that any findings recorded by
integrity of this order/judgment.
RSA No.100 of 2024 -4- 2024:PHHC:005056
both the Courts below, on merits, would not be binding on the parties since
the suit was held to be not maintainable.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed off. Pending applications, if
any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
16.01.2024 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment.
