Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Fazru And Anr vs Jaituni on 14 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037872
RSA-569-1991 (O&M). -1- 2024:PHHC:037872
RSA-570-1991 (O&M).
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH.
126 (Two Cases)
Date of Decision: 14.03.2024.
(1) RSA-569-1991 (O&M).
FARZU AND ANOTHER
... Appellants
Versus
SMT. JAITUNI
... Respondent
***
(2) RSA-570-1991 (O&M).
ROSHAN AND ANOTHER
... Appellants
Versus
SMT. JAITUNI
... Respondents
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 30-03-2024 01:13:02 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037872
RSA-569-1991 (O&M). -2- 2024:PHHC:037872
RSA-570-1991 (O&M).
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.
Present: Mr. Lakshya Aggarwal, for the appellants.
Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the respondent.
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J (ORAL).
Both the above said Regular Second Appeals are being decided
by a single order as the issue involved is common in the same.
2 Vide RSA-569-1991, a challenge is raised to the judgment and
decree dated 29.09.1989 passed by the Court of Special Judge Second
Class, F.P. Jhirka, Gurgaon, in Civil Suit No.136 of 05.05.1989 as well as
the dismissal of the appeal by the District Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment
and decree dated 18.12.1989, in a suit for possession instituted by the
appellant. RSA-570-1991 emanates from a civil suit instituted by Roshan
and another bearing Civil Suit No.108 of 03.05.1989, dismissed vide
judgment and decree dated 29.09.1989 and the subsequent dismissal of
Civil Appeal No.133/13 instituted on 12.10.1989, by the District Judge,
Gurgaon, vide judgment dated 18.12.1989, in the suit for possession filed
by the plaintiffs therein.
3 Learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs claim that the suit
land was given to the forefathers for service of the Takia as Bhondedari
land and that the husband of the defendant died and the services were not
being offered. Hence, Bhondedari on the suit came to an end and that there
was no subsisting right with the defendants to retain the possession of the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037872
RSA-569-1991 (O&M). -3- 2024:PHHC:037872
RSA-570-1991 (O&M).
suit land and that the appellants-plaintiffs were entitled to take possession of
the said land.
4 Upon consideration of the pleadings, issues were framed and
in the light of the evidence led by the respective parties, it was recorded by
the Courts below that as per the list of proprietors produced by the plaintiffs
in the suit, they were not the owners of the suit land and were also not the
proprietors of Patti Taj Khan. It was also observed that suit had been filed
by the persons other than the proprietors of the Patti Taj Khan and that the
same could not be treated as a suit in a representative capacity on behalf of
the proprietors of the village. Consequently, the same was dismissed. In the
appeal preferred by the appellants-plaintiffs, the Court considered the
arguments advanced by the appellants-plaintiffs that Bhondedari should be
succeeded in view of the precedent judgments and a finding was recorded
that the suit land cannot be given to the appellants-plaintiffs since they have
themselves failed to establish that they were proprietors in the land.
5 Learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs contends that
during the pendency of the present appeal, the State of Haryana had already
notified the Haryana Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muqararidar
(Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 2010 (Act No.1 of 2011) and that in
view of the subsequent enactment, the parties will have their respective
claims in terms of the said Statute and therefore, he prays that both the suits
be permitted to be withdrawn so as to enable the parties to establish their
rights under the Haryana Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muqararidar
(Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 2010 (Act No.1 of 2011).
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037872
RSA-569-1991 (O&M). -4- 2024:PHHC:037872
RSA-570-1991 (O&M).
6 Learned counsel for the respondent-defendant has no objection
to the withdrawal of the suit by the appellants-plaintiffs.
7 In view of above, the appellants-plaintiffs are permitted to
withdraw the respective civil suits with liberties as aforesaid.
8 Both the present regular second appeals are disposed of
accordingly.
9 A photocopy of the order be placed on the file of connected
case.
March 14, 2024. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
raj arora JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
