Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kartar Singh vs Rohtas Singh on 6 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
109 2024:PHHC:032331
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
1. Regular Second Appeal No. 1201 of 1994
Kartar Singh (Now Deceased) through his Legal Representatives
... Appellant(s)
Versus
Rohtash Singh and Another
... Respondent(s)
AND
2. COCP No. 1352 of 1996
Shakuntala Devi and Others
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Rohtash Singh and Another
... Respondent(s)
DATE OF DECISION: 06.03.2024
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present: Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Senior Advocate
with Mr. R.P.Daaria, Advocate
for the appellant(s) (In RSA-1201-1994) and
for the petitioner(s) (In COCP-1352-1996).
Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate
for the respondents.
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1. The plaintiff has filed this regular second appeal to assail the
correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court,
which, in turn, has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial
2024.03.12 10:42 Court. In the first round, the First Appellate Court had remanded the case
2024:PHHC:032331
back to the Trial Court. Subsequently, the Trial Court decided the matter
afresh.
2. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. The plaintiff/appellant
(since deceased) filed a suit for the grant of decree of permanent injunction
and possession of the residential plot. He through the suit land claimed that
he purchased the property vide sale deed dated 11.02.1985 from Deep Chand
and Hoshiar Singh, sons of Gopal and the defendants wanted to encroach
upon the same and they might have already encroached upon some portion
thereof.
3. The defendants, while contesting the suit, claimed that the
plaintiff is neither the owner nor in possession of the property. It is, in fact,
the defendants who are in possession of the property for the last 25 years.
Deep Chand and Hoshiar Singh were never the owners of the plot i.e. Ahata
No. 77, Ghar No. 201.
4. The Trial Court decreed the suit and held that the plaintiffs are
entitled to possession of some part of the property. However, the First
Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of evidence, found that the plaintiffs
claimed to have purchased the plot measuring 270 square yards, whereas the
disputed plot measures 529 square yards. Moreover, in the judgment dated
13.12.1926 (Ex.PX3), it is evident that the name of Dev Karan was recorded
to be in possession of the said plot but he was neither the owner nor was he
ever allotted the plot. Hence, the plaintiffs have failed to prove the title of
their vendors. Moreover, the defendants, during the pendency of the suit,
have purchased the property vide registered sale deed dated 21.09.1990 from
2024:PHHC:032331
Ganga Sahai son of Rura who was recorded as owner in judgment (Ex.PX3)
dated 13.12.1926.
5. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and
with their able assistance, perused the paper-book along with the scanned
digital record of the Trial Court.
6. The learned senior counsel representing the appellant contends
that the defendants have filed as many as three written statements. He
submits that it was only in the third written statement, the defendants
pleaded that they had purchased the property vide sale deed dated
21.09.1990. He further submits that the judgment (Ex.PX3) proves that Dev
Karan son of Ganga Sahai was in possession of the property which was
transferred to the plaintiffs.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the
respondents submits that perusal of the judgment (Ex.PX3) proves that
Ganga Sahai son of Rura was owner of the property which has been sold to
Rohtash. He further submits that the name of Dev Karan is only recorded in
the column No.4 which relates to possession. He further submits that Dev
Karan is thus not proved to be the owner. He further submits that there is no
evidence adduced to prove that the suit land was ever allotted to Dev Karan.
8. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel representing the parties.
9. Ex.PX3 is a pivotal document on which both the parties are
relying upon. On a careful perusal thereof, it is evident that Ganga Sahai son
of Rura was recorded as owner. The name of Dev Karan was only recorded
2024:PHHC:032331
in the column of possession. There is no evidence that Dev Karan was ever
allotted the land.
10. Furthermore, the plaintiff had purchased the plot measuring 270
square yards. Though, he has failed to prove that the vendors, namely Deep
Chand and Hoshiar Singh sons of Gopal were having any right, title or
interest in the same. Moreover, the disputed plot measures 529 square yards.
11 Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, there is no ground to
interfere with the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court. Hence,
Regular Second Appeal No. 1201 of 1994 is dismissed.
12. Civil Original Contempt Petition No. 1352 of 1996 has been
filed to allege violation of the interlocutory order passed during the
pendency of the suit. Once the appeal has been dismissed, this Court does
not find it appropriate to continue with the contempt petition. Hence, Civil
Original Contempt Petition No. 1352 of 1996 is disposed of.
(Anil Kshetarpal)
Judge
March 06, 2024
"DK"
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
