Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajpal Singh And Others vs Bhairu Singh And Others on 4 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:030621
RSA-2006-1992 (O&M) & 2024:PHHC:030621
RSA-2007-1992 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
144 2024:PHHC:030621
1. RSA-2006-1992 (O&M)
Date of decision: 04.03.2024
RAJPAL SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS.
..Appellants
Versus
BHAIRU SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS.
..Respondents
2. RSA-2007-1992
RAJPAL SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS.
..Appellants
Versus
CHHATU SINGH & ORS.
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Manuj Chadha, Advocate
for respondent No.1 to 5 (in RSA-2007-1992)
for respondent No.8 to 12 (in RSA-2006-1992).
Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate
for respondent No.23, 24, 29 & 31 to 33.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
CM-2306-C-2024 in RSA-2006-1992
1. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by
an affidavit, the application for bringing on record the legal representatives
of deceased late Sh. Hira Singh (appellant No.2), Sh. Harpal Singh
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:030621
RSA-2006-1992 (O&M) & 2024:PHHC:030621
RSA-2007-1992 -2-
(appellant No.4), Sh. Attar Singh (appellant No.5), Sh. Narain Singh
(appellant No.11), Sh. Hansa Singh (appellant No.13), is allowed, subject to
all the just exceptions.
2. The amended memo of parties is taken on record.
3. CM stands disposed of.
Main case
4. With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties,
two connected regular second appeals filed against a common judgment
passed by the First Appellate Court shall stand disposed of by this common
order.
5. In these regular second appeals, the plaintiffs are assailing the
correctness of the findings of fact arrived at by the First Appellate Court on
reappreciation of evidence.
6. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be considered.
7. The plaintiffs filed a suit for grant of decree of permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession. In
substance, the plaintiffs are claiming that the plaintiffs and the proforma
defendants No.31 to 37 are co-sharers to the extent of 1 and ½ (half) share of
'Bael' (oxen) in agricultural land comprised in Khewat No.289, Khatoni
No.431 and 461, situated in the revenue estate, Village Jhagroli. This khewat
consist of 32 'Baels' (oxens). The area of one 'Bael' (oxen) is equivalent to
75 kanal and 12 marlas. It was alleged that fard badar No.9, dated
26.09.1979, recorded by the Patwari and attested by the Assistant Collector,
IInd Grade is illegal, null and void.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:030621
RSA-2006-1992 (O&M) & 2024:PHHC:030621
RSA-2007-1992 -3-
8. The defendants while contesting the case alleged that there was
an error in the revenue record, which has been consequently corrected by the
revenue authorities after examining the entire record.
9. The trial Court had originally decided the case on 01.03.1983,
however, in appeal, the matter was remanded back by the Additional District
Judge vide order dated 30.08.1986. Subsequently, the trial Court decreed the
suit on 26.03.1987. In appeal, the First Appellate Court has reversed the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court while deciding two connected
appeals.
10. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.
11. The learned counsel representing the appellants contends that
the First Appellate Court has itself recorded that the order dated 24.09.1979
is a non-speaking order and it has been passed without giving opportunity to
the plaintiffs. He further submits that the share of the plaintiff has been
reduced in an arbitrary manner.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the
respondents submits that the revenue authorities corrected the error after
perusing the entire record. He further submits that the First Appellate Court
after careful perusal of the revenue record from the year 1962 B.K. to 2002-
03 B.K., came to conclusion that the order passed by the revenue authorities
making correction in the revenue record is the correct reflection of the rights
of the parties.
13. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the parties.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:030621
RSA-2006-1992 (O&M) & 2024:PHHC:030621
RSA-2007-1992 -4-
14. The revenue authorities have the enabling power to carry out
necessary corrections in the revenue record by entering fard badar. The fard
badar does not decide substantive rights of the parties. It is evident that the
plaintiff filed the civil suit on 06.03.1980. They produced evidence to
establish their rights. The First Appellate Court after careful evaluation of
the evidence held that the revenue record spanning over a period of 40 years,
proves that there was an error in the revenue record while reflecting the
share of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant No.31 to 37, which has been
corrected by the revenue authorities by entering fard badar.
15. It may be noted here that previously the defendants filed civil
suit, however, during the pendency of the civil suit, the error in the revenue
record was corrected, hence, the defendants withdrew the suit. Subsequently,
the plaintiff filed the suit, which as already noticed was decreed by the trial
Court, however, reversed in appeal by the First Appellate Court through the
elaborate findings of the fact arrived on reappreciation of evidence. It is
proved on record that the plaintiff and proforma defendant No.31 to 37 are
co-sharers to the extent of 1 'Bael' (oxen) i.e. 75 kanal and 12 marla land
and not 1 and ½ (half) oxen.
16. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no ground to interfere
is made out.
17. Both the appeals are dismissed accordingly.
18. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
March 04th, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:030621
4 of 4
