Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chamkaur Singh vs Pavittar Singh And Others on 11 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034380
RSA No.1935 of 2018 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:034380
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1935 of 2018 (O&M)
Date of Order:11.03.2024
Chamkaur Singh
.Appellant
Versus
Pavittar Singh and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. L.S.Sidhu, Advocate
for the appellant.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. In this regular second appeal, the plaintiff assails the correctness
of the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, which in
turn reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
2. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
3. The plaintiff filed a suit for grant of decree of declaration that
he is the exclusive owner of an electric connection installed on a tubewell
located in the land comprised in Rect. No.20, Khasra NO.18/1 (4 kanals and
4 marlas). He claimed that in a family partition which took place 35 years
ago, the disputed property fell to his share and in the year 1992, he applied
for a new electric connection which was installed in the year 2013.
4. The defendants while contesting the suit claimed that Sh.
Baldev Singh, father of the plaintiff and defendants died on 22.05.2015.
The plaintiff being eldest brother, applied for electric connection in his own
name which was issued, however, the entire agricultural land of the parties
is joint.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034380
RSA No.1935 of 2018 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:034380
5. The trial court decreed the suit on the ground that the electric
connection is exclusive in the name of the plaintiff. The First Appellate
Court on re-appreciation of the evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the
plaintiff has failed to prove that the agricultural land between the parties was
ever partitioned. Though, the plaintiff claimed that the family partition was
reduced into writing, however, he failed to produce the same. In the revenue
record, the agricultural land is recorded as joint. The plaintiff has not even
alleged that the land comprised in Rect. No.20, khasra no.18/1, where
electric tubewell connection has been installed exclusively belongs to the
plaintiff. Thus, the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree
passed by the trial court.
6. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
appellant at length and with his able assistance perused the paper book.
7. The learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the
electricity connection of the tubewell is exclusively in favour of the plaintiff
and it has been issued on the declaration submitted by the defendants. He
submits that the defendants cannot claim any share in the electricity
connection.
8. This court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the appellant.
9. It is evident that the electric connection on the tubewell has
been installed in the joint unpartitioned land between the parties. They are
members of the same family. It is not in dispute that the appellant is the
elder brother of the respondent. It is the case of the defendants that the
electric connection was applied in the name of the plaintiff because he was
the elder brother of the respondents. On preponderance of evidence, the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034380
RSA No.1935 of 2018 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:034380
First Appellate Court has found that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case.
10. In the Regular Second Appeal, the court is not expected to
interfere unless the findings of fact arrived at by the First Appellate Court
are a result of misreading or non-reading of evidence. The findings of fact
arrived at by the court on appreciation of evidence is not required to be
interfered with in absence of perversity in the view taken in the impugned
judgment.
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground
to interfere is made out.
12. Dismissed.
13. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
March 11, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034380
3 of 3
