Rajesh vs Rajender Singh And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 10620 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajesh vs Rajender Singh And Others on 2 July, 2024

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081479



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

142


                                                  RSA-1450-2024 (O&M)
                                                  Date of decision: 02.07.2024

RAJESH                                                      ..Appellant

                                      Versus

RAJENDER SINGH AND OTHERS                                   ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:     Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Advocate
             for the appellant.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)

1. In this regular second appeal, defendant No.3 assails the

correctness of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below

while decreeing plaintiff's suit for possession of 6 kanal and 15 marlas of

land. The plaintiff claiming to be owner of the property along with proforma

defendants filed the suit for possession. The defendants while contesting the

case claimed that they have perfected their title by way of adverse

possession and the previous suit filed by proforma defendants was

dismissed. Both the Courts upon appreciation of evidence have found that

the plaintiff was proforma defendant in the previous suit and no relief was

sought against him. It is also found that the defendants failed to prove that

they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession.

2. The learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the

judgment in the previous suit will operate as res judicata. She further

submits that the appellant is in possession for the last 22 years.

3. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned

counsel representing the appellant.

                                       1 of 2

                                          Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081479



RSA-1450-2024 (O&M)                      -2-

4. It is evident that the previous suit was dismissed under Order

XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, because the proforma

defendants who were the plaintiffs in the previous suit did not produce

evidence. Moreover, the plaintiff was proforma defendant and he was out of

the Country. Hence, the judgment would not operate as res judicata against

him.

5. The appellant has failed to prove as to when his possession

became adverse. He is owner of the adjoining land. Both the Courts have

found that he has encroached upon the plaintiff's share.

6. In view of the aforesaid fact, no ground to interfere is made out.

7. Dismissed accordingly.

8. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

July 02nd, 2024                                        (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay                                                          JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned          :     Yes/No
Whether reportable                 :     Yes/No




                                        2 of 2