Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lachhman Ram Etc vs Satnam Kaur Etc on 13 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037210
2024:PHHC:037210
RSA-1854-1993 (O&M)
1
137 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Decided on: 13.03.2024
RSA-1854-1993 (O&M)
Lachhman Ram and others .....Appellants
V/S
Santam Kaur and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Ms. Sakshi Singh, Advocate for
Mr. K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate
for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
****
HARKESH MANUJA J. (ORAL)
1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been made to the
judgments and decrees dated 23.11.1989 and 06.04.1993 passed by the Courts
below, whereby a suit for permanent injunction filed at the instance of
respondents/ plaintiffs with a prayer for restraining appellants-defendants in
their peaceful possession over the suit property, stands decreed.
2. Briefly stating, the respondents/ plaintiffs filed a suit for
permanent injunction with a prayer for restraining the appellants/ defendants
from interfering into their peaceful possession over the disputed plot comprised
in Khasra No.84//19/9/0-3 forming part of abadi of Village Begowal, District
Kapurthala. It was claimed that the mother of respondents/ plaintiffs was
allotted the aforesaid plot by the Gram Panchayat followed by handing over of
its possession, however, the appellants/ defendants were interfering therein and
as such the suit.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037210
2024:PHHC:037210
RSA-1854-1993 (O&M)
3. In response, appellants/ defendants filed written statement
controverting the stand taken in the plaint while submitting that the plots were
allotted in favour of the parties in view of resolution dated 27.09.1976 passed
by the Gram Panchayat, Village Begowal, in accordance with Rule 10 (b) of
the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964. It was further
averred that mother of respondents/ plaintiffs was allotted plot No.94; whereas
the appellants/ defendants were allotted plot No.95 and the land in dispute
formed part of plot No.95 and prayed that the suit was thus, liable to be
dismissed.
4. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 23.09.1989
decreed the suit in favour of the respondents/ plaintiffs while restraining the
appellants/ defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession over the
suit land.
Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/defendants filed first appeal
before the learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, however, the same
came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 06.04.1993 thereby,
upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
5. Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees, learned
counsel representing the appellants/defendants submits that there has been
misreading of evidence on the part of Courts below while decreeing the suit in
favour of the respondents/ plaintiffs. On the other hand, no one has appeared
on behalf of respondents-plaintiffs.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants and
gone through the paper-book. I do not find substance in the submission made
by learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants.
7. A concurrent finding of fact has been recorded in favour of
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037210
2024:PHHC:037210
RSA-1854-1993 (O&M)
respondents / plaintiffs as regards their settled possession over the suit land
which has been based on the documentary evidence produced on record in the
shape of aks-shajra, Jamabandies as well as Khasra Girdwaries. .
More than that, nothing has been pointed out to submit that there
has been any misreading of the material evidence or any such evidence has
either been ignored.
8. In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, finding no
illegality or perversity with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the
Courts below as regards the possession of respondents-plaintiffs over the suit
property, the present appeal is hereby dismissed there being no question of law
involved.
9. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
March 13, 2024 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
Anu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037210
3 of 3
