Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Municipal Committee, Jind vs Dharam Singh And Ors on 14 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037290
RSA-91-1990 (O&M). -1- 2024:PHHC:037290
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH.
124
RSA-91-1990 (O&M).
Reserved on: 12.03.2024.
Date of Decision: 14.03.2024.
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, JIND.
... Appellant
Versus
DHARAM SINGH AND OTHERS
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.
Present: Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. A.P. Setia, Advocate, for the respondents.
Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate, for respondents No.5 to 8.
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.
The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the
appellant-defendant Municipal Council, Jind against the judgment and
decree dated 05.02.1987 passed by the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Jind and
the subsequent dismissal of appeal preferred by appellant-defendant
Municipal Council, Jind, by the District Judge, Jind vide judgment dated
16.05.1989.
2 Briefly summarized, the facts of the present case are that the
respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the
appellant-defendant Municipal Council, Jind, seeking injunction from
1 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037290
RSA-91-1990 (O&M). -2- 2024:PHHC:037290
interfering in their possession of the land measuring 5 biswas pukhta
situated in Jind comprised in Khasra No.1525/1 min bounded as under:-
East: Sati Thanesharian,
West: Road
North: Road
South: land of the defendant.
3 It was averred in the plaint that Angoori Devi, Lila Devi, Behti
Devi and Lilawati were owners of the disputed land. A civil suit was filed
by them against the Municipal Council, Jind, which was decreed by the then
Senior Sub Judge, Jind, vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.1973
whereby the vendors of the respondents-plaintiffs herein were held to be the
owners in possession of the suit land. An appeal was filed by the Municipal
Committee Jind, against the said judgment and decree dated 28.02.1973,
which was also dismissed by the District Judge, Jind. During their being in
possession of the land, Lilawati and others i.e. the vendors of the
respondents-plaintiffs laid foundation over the suit land and raised
construction. They remained in actual physical possession of the same as
owners. The respondents-plaintiffs herein purchased the suit land from the
vendors Angoori Devi and others through registered sale deed dated
22.10.1982 (EX.P-6) for a sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- and took actual
physical possession of the property from said Angoori Devi and others and
since then they are in continuous, exclusive and peaceful possession of the
suit land and the same is being used for tethering of their cattles. It was
averred that one Jagat Singh son of Ruli Ram encroached upon the suit land
and he also filed a civil suit against the respondents-plaintiffs which was
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037290
RSA-91-1990 (O&M). -3- 2024:PHHC:037290
resisted by the respondents-plaintiffs. Vide order dated 02.03.1983, the then
Sub Judge First Class, Jind, directed the parties to maintain status quo.
Aggrieved thereof, said Jagat Singh filed an appeal before the Ld. District
Judge, Jind which was pending on the date when the suit herein was filed.
Said Jagat Singh also filed a Civil suit against Municipal Council, Jind with
respect to the above said land along with some other land which was
decided in favour of the Municipal Council, Jind vide judgment and decree
dated 13.10.84. It is averred that the plaintiffs stepped into the shoes of Smt.
Anguri Devi etc. and that under the garb of judgment and decree dated
13.10.1984, the Administrator, Municipal Committee, Jind attempted to
take forcible possession of the suit property. The foundation laid by the
plaintiffs was dug, bricks were thrown and the dung-cake hill were put on
fire. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction was filed.
The appellant-defendant Municipal Council, Jind entered
appearance and filed the written statement wherein they did not dispute the
judgment and decree dated 28.02.1973 passed in favour of Lilawati and
others. Further, the factum of rejection of appeal by the District Judge, Jind
was also not denied. The factum of frivolous suit instituted by Jagat Singh
s/o Ruli Ram of Jind was however denied, but they acknowledged that Jagat
Singh had also filed a civil suit against the Municipal Committee which was
dismissed. It was also averred that the sale-deed in favour of the
respondents-plaintiffs was false, without consideration and not binding
upon the rights of the Municipal Council-appellant. It was also stated that
the property cannot be ascertained as its dimensions, length, width and area
in square feet is not given and that a false and frivolous suit has been filed
to grab the land of the Municipal Council.
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037290
RSA-91-1990 (O&M). -4- 2024:PHHC:037290
4 On consideration of the pleadings, the following issues were
framed:-
"1. Whether plaintiffs are owners and in possession of the
suit property as alleged in para No.1 and 2 of plaint ? OPP
2. Whether plaint is vague and idefinite, if so, to what effect
? OPD.
3. Whether Haryana State is a necessary party; if so to what
effect ? OPD
4. Whether suit is false and frivolous and defendant is
entitled for compensatory costs ? OPD.
5. Relief.
5 Evidence was led by the respective parties and while dealing
with the issue as to whether the plaintiffs are owners and in possession of
the suit property in issue No.1, the trial Court referred to the judgment and
decree dated 28.02.1973 (EX.P-1) wherein vendors of the respondents-
plaintiffs were held to be owners and in possession of the suit land. It was
also noticed that Angoori Devi vendors of the respondents-plaintiffs had
claimed their ownership on the basis of sale deed dated 22.12.1966
executed in their favour. In the said civil suit, the stand of the appellant-
defendant Municipal Committee was that the suit land was a public street
and a specific issue to the said effect was also framed. The Committee
failed to prove its stand and discharge its onus. The suit for permanent
injunction was decided against the appellant-defendant Municipal
Committee and in favour of Angoori Devi and others. The appeal against
the said judgment and decree was also dismissed on 17.01.1974. Hence, it
was noticed that the respondents-plaintiffs were able to prove a valid title in
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037290
RSA-91-1990 (O&M). -5- 2024:PHHC:037290
favour of their vendors and that the sale deed EX.P-6 contained full
description of the land.
6 To controvert the claim of the respondents-plaintiffs the
Committee examined DW.1 Mam Chand Parokar of the Committee and
DW.2 Ramesh Chand J.E. of the Municipal Committee, Jind. However,
they only relied upon the oral evidence of the said witnesses. It was noted
by the trial Court that even the said witness had not seen the documents of
ownership of the plaintiffs qua the suit land, hence, their testimonies were
observed to be without much force.
7 Upon consideration of the rival submissions, the Senior Sub
Judge, Jind, also made a reference to the High Court Rules and Orders
Volume I, Chapter 1-9, Para No.9 which prescribes that where the suit is
for any specific plot with definite boundaries, it shall also be accompanied
by a map drawn to scale showing clearly the specific plot claimed or in
relation to which the decree is to be made and so much of the fields,
adjoining be also drawn to scale as may be sufficient to facilitate
identification. It was noticed that the identity of the suit property including
Khasra numbers was duly mentioned and the same already stands
established in the judgment and decree dated 28.02.1973 in EX.P-1 and
subsequent dismissal of the appeal on 17.01.1974 (EX.P-3). The certified
copy of the site plan was EX.P-5 of Suit file No.188 of 1970 decided on
28.02.1973 in which suit, the original had been well proven. It was thus
held that the ownership and possession as well as demarcation of the
property is specifically proved and that the plea that the area cannot be
identified or is not capable of demarcation is not sustainable. The
contention of the appellant-defendant Municipal Committee, Jind was
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037290
RSA-91-1990 (O&M). -6- 2024:PHHC:037290
rejected and suit was decreed against the appellant-defendant with costs.
Appellant-defendant Municipal Committee, Jind was restrained from
interfering into ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.
8 Aggrieved thereof, an appeal had been preferred by the
appellant-defendant Municipal Committee, Jind before the District Judge,
Jind. Vide his judgment and decree dated 16.05.1989, the said appeal was
also dismissed by the District Judge, after recording that the respondents-
plaintiffs succeeded in establishing that they had derived their valid title and
were also in actual physical possession of the suit property. Reference was
also made to the earlier judgment passed in favour of the vendors of the
respondents-plaintiffs and the site plan which was duly proved on the file of
the said suit as EX.P-5. Consequent to dismissal of the said appeal by the
District Judge, Jind, the present regular second appeal has been filed.
9 Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Courts
have failed to take into consideration that one Jagat
Singh had filed a suit for injunction to restrain the Municipal Committee
from interfering in possession of the plaintiff Jagat Singh therein and that
the property in dispute in the present case was also included the property in
dispute as has been specifically admitted in the plaint by the respondents-
plaintiff himself. He contends that the Municipal Committee had taken the
matter upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.290 of 1991
decided on 28.03.1995 and reported as [1995 AIR (SC) 377]. In the said
suit instituted by Jagat Singh, the Municipal Committee Jind had been
declared as owner of the suit land and the area was concluded to be a gair
mumkin johar. He further contends that the description of the property is
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037290
RSA-91-1990 (O&M). -7- 2024:PHHC:037290
not clear and once the description of the property is unascertainable, the suit
ought to have failed for the said reason.
10 Responding to the above, learned Senior counsel for the
respondents-plaintiffs contends that in so far as the suit of Advocate Jagat
Singh is concerned, the said suit had been filed by him for seeking
injunction against the Municipal Committee from interfering in possession
over land measuring 05 kanals compromised in Khewat No.134, Khatauni
No.155, Rectangle No.173, Killa No.27/1. He further contends that even
though the appellant claims the aforesaid land to be part of Khasra No.153/5
min, however, no evidence has been led by the Municipal Committee to
link the land described herein to be same land. Nonetheless, it was
contended that civil suit instituted by Jagat Singh was dismissed by the
Senior Sub Judge since Jagat Singh failed to prove that he was owner in
possession of the suit land. The Court of District Judge set aside the finding
recorded by the trial Court and decreed the suit in favour of Jagat Singh,
respondent therein, after accepting title of Prem Singh who was alleged to
be predecessor-in-interest of said Jagat Singh.
11 The Regular Second Appeal filed by the Municipal Committee
was also dismissed by the High Court against which the Municipal
Committee had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was noticed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the respondent-plaintiff Jagat Singh, who
claimed to be the owner of the land in question and to be in continuous
possession of the said land, failed to establish his title to the suit land and
that the Court of appeal merely recorded that the title of the respondent-
plaintiff Jagat Singh therein was admitted by the Municipal Committee. The
title and possession of Jagat Singh was always disputed right from the stage
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037290
RSA-91-1990 (O&M). -8- 2024:PHHC:037290
of filing of written statement and that the suit of respondent-plaintiff could
not be decreed merely on the basis of entries in the revenue record. It was
also observed that the respondent-plaintiff contended that the Municipal
Committee had made unauthorized encroachment over the land and that a
statutory notice was served upon him which was challenged. It was thus
specifically a case filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and the
decree was passed even though ownership by the respondent-plaintiff
therein could not be established.
12 He argues that the Hon'ble Supreme Court nowhere declares
the Municipal Committee, Jind, to be the owner of the land and the said
judgment, can at best be read as holding that Jagat Singh, respondent-
plaintiff therein was not established to be the owner of the suit land. He
further submits that as against the same, the case of the respondents-
plaintiffs is on a much better footing since vendors of the respondents-
plaintiffs had succeeded in the proceedings instituted by them earlier
against the Municipal Committee in Civil Suit No.188 of 1970. A specific
issue as to whether the plaintiff Angoori Devi, Lilawati and defendants
No.3 and 4 therein i.e. the vendors of the petitioner had become the owners
in possession of the property in dispute from one Shamsher Singh was also
framed. While dealing with the said issue, a specific finding was recorded
by the Senior Sub Judge in the judgment EX.P-1 that the plaintiffs and
defendants No.3 and 4 therein were owners in possession of the property in
dispute on the basis of Ex.P-2. The said judgment was assailed by the
Municipal Committee, by filing an appeal before the District Judge, Rohtak
camp at Jind and the same was dismissed by the District Judge, vide
judgment dated 17.01.1974. Hence, title of the vendors of the respondents-
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037290
RSA-91-1990 (O&M). -9- 2024:PHHC:037290
plaintiffs was fully established. He further submits that site plan EX.P-5
was duly brought on record which gave a detailed description of the
property and its dimensions and that the same was duly established also in
the previous round of litigation amongst the parties. Hence, it is not a case
that the property was not correctly described. The sale deed also specifically
mentions about the dimensions and the boundaries of the property in dispute
and that the same is to be read in consonance with the documents that
already stands established and proved before the Court in the proceedings
instituted by vendors of the respondents-plaintiffs and decreed on
28.02.1973 as upheld vide judgment dated 17.01.1974.
13 No other argument has been raised.
14 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties at great length.
15 For accepting the plea of the appellant-defendant Municipal
Committee, Jind that it was owner of the land question and the said land
was gair mumkin johr, it was incumbent upon the appellant-defendant
Municipal Committee, Jind to lead evidence and establish that Khasra
no.1525/1 min was a gair mumkin johr and then an entry to the said effect
stood in the revenue record in favour of the appellant-defendant Municipal
Committee, Jind. No such record had been proved by the appellant-
defendant Municipal Committee and only oral evidence has been led by the
appellant-defendant Municipal Committee, Jind and even their own Junior
Engineer gave a statement that he had not seen the title document of the
land in question.
16 Still further, much emphasis had been laid on the proceedings
instituted by Jagat Singh against appellant-defendant Municipal Committee,
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037290
RSA-91-1990 (O&M). -10- 2024:PHHC:037290
Jind to contend that ownership of the Municipal Committee stood accepted
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Jagat Singh (supra).
However, a perusal of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
clearly reflects that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not passed any
declaration in favour of Nagar Palika, Jind, declaring it to be the owner of
the land notwithstanding that there was no evidence to link that the land in
dispute in the said civil suit is in fact the same land as is subject matter of
the current proceedings. Be that as it may, the said proceedings had
culminated against the respondent-plaintiff therein Jagat Singh as he failed
to establish his possession and consequently could not be vested with the
possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
17 It is also noticed that the judgment and decree dated
28.02.1973 and the judgment of the District Judge, Rohtak, camp at Jind
dated 17.01.1974 clearly established that title of the vendors of the
respondent-plaintiff stood established and affirmed. Once a finding on the
issues had already been recorded by the Civil Courts in favour of the
vendors who had subsequently sold the land in favour of the respondents-
plaintiffs and the specific demarcation and the site plan has been duly
established, it cannot be said that the identification and demarcation of the
suit property is indiscernible.
18 Hence, considering it from any angle, the appellant-defendant
Municipal Committee, Jind has failed to establish its case on both counts
i.e. Khasra No.1525/1 min is a gair mumkin johr and also that ownership of
the said land stood vested with the Municipal Committee. While the
plaintiffs established that ownership of his vendors was decreed by the
Courts, against the Municipal Committee and that the Municipal Committee
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037290
RSA-91-1990 (O&M). -11- 2024:PHHC:037290
would have no right to raise a fresh title. The said issue having already
attained finality, Municipal Committee, cannot claim a better right against
the vendees. Concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the Courts
and there is no material on record on the basis whereof such finding can be
said to be illegal, perverse, invalid or not sustainable on a meaningful
reading of the evidence. The affirmative evidence led by the respondents-
plaintiffs being attempted to be discredited on a general inference to flow
from judgment of Jagat Singh (supra) when the said judgment does not
make a declaration in favour of Municipal Committee, Jind and description
of land has not been matched.
19 The present regular second appeal is accordingly dismissed.
20 Pending, misc. application(s), if any shall also stand(s)
disposed of accordingly.
March 14, 2024. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
raj arora JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
11 of 11
