Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjinder Pal Singh vs Bachan Kaur & Ors on 15 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041640
RSA-155-2018 (O&M) 1 2024:PHHC:041640
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-155-2018 (O&M)
Pronounced on : 15.03.2024
Manjinder Pal Singh through his LR Parminder Kaur
...Appellant
Versus
Bachan Kaur and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE
Present: Mr. Inderpal Singh Parmar, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
RITU TAGORE, J.
CM-321-C-2018
Prayer is for condoning delay of 61 days in refiling the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 61 days in
refiling the appeal is condoned.
Application is disposed of accordingly.
CM-322-C-2018
Prayer is for condoning delay of 85 days in filing the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 85 days in
filing the appeal is condoned.
Application is disposed of accordingly.
CM-323-C-2018
Heard on application for bringing on record the LRs of deceased
appellant-Manjinder Pal Singh. Application is duly supported by the affidavit
of his LR-Parminder Kaur.
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041640
RSA-155-2018 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:041640
In view of the averments made in the application, same is
allowed and Parminder Kaur-LR of deceased-appellant is ordered to be
brought on record, subject to just exceptions.
Amended memo of parties is taken on record.
RSA-155-2018
1. Appellant-defendant has not been able to defend the suit for
permanent injunction preferred by respondents-plaintiffs, before the learned
Courts below and has filed this appeal.
2. Respondents-plaintiffs instituted a suit for permanent injunction
against the appellant-defendant with averments that defendant or his
assignees/associates be restrained from interfering or causing any interference
in their peaceful possession over the suit property i.e., a residential house
measuring 60 feet x 180 feet approximately, situated in Grewal Colony known
as Basant Vihar Colony, Noorwala Road (village Phambra) Ludhiana, shown
in the site plan attached and bounded with the boundaries detailed in the head
note of the plaint, forcibly or illegally except in due course of law.
3. For the sake of convenience, herein, parties are referred to as per
their status before the learned trial Court.
4. According to the plaintiffs, Kehar Singh their predecessor-in-
interest was the owner of several acres of agriculture land and out of the said
land, the plaintiffs raised construction of a residential house on a plot
measuring 1200 square yards (60 feet x180 feet), as detailed in the head note
of the plaint and started residing there. It is stated that over the time, the area
developed and became popular as a Basant Vihar Colony, Ludhiana.
5. According to the plaintiffs, defendant is the grand-son of plaintiff
No.1 and has been residing separately from them for many years in his
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041640
RSA-155-2018 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:041640
separate house built nearby the land and now they have no relations with each
other since long time. Plaintiffs also pleaded that they have been in possession
of the suit property since the life time of Kehar Singh. They have their ration
cards, birth certificates and other facilities in their names on the suit property.
It is asserted by the plaintiffs that after the death of Kehar Singh on
30.04.2000, who died intestate, the defendant started threatening to dispossess
them forcibly and illegally from the suit property, having no right, title, or
interest in the same, and also made an attempt in said regard, but could not
succeed due to timely intervention of the respectables that necessitated them
to file the suit.
6. Appellant-defendant, upon appearance, filed his written-
statement and denied the assertions of the plaintiffs to have raised any
construction on the suit property or being in physical possession of it. Instead,
pleaded to dismiss the suit of plaintiffs on the ground of vagueness and lack of
proper description of the suit property, including its revenue or municipal
number. Defendant admitted that deceased Kehar Singh was his grand-father,
original owner of the suit property, however, asserted that Kehar Singh
executed a Will dated 07.07.1993 in his favour for the services rendered by
him to his grandfather and claimed his ownership on the suit property. He
also pleaded that a suit for permanent injunction filed by him against the
plaintiffs is pending for adjudication. On the above material assertions,
defendant pleaded for dismissal of the suit of plaintiffs being devoid of merits.
7. Based on the rival pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the
following issues:-
"(i) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for? OPP
(iii) Whether plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041640
RSA-155-2018 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:041640
(iv) Whether suit property is not properly and completely described, if so, its
effect? OPD
(v) Relief."
8. Plaintiffs in order to prove their case, examined Tajinder Singh-
plaintiff No.3, who appeared as PW-1 and tendered his affidavit PW-1/A
reiterating the averments of the plaint and also tendered documents i.e., copy
of ration card (Ex.P-1), copy of telephone bill (Ex.P-2), copy of birth
certificate (Ex.P-3), copy of marriage certificate (Ex.P-4), site plan (Ex.P-5)
and copy of judgment and decree dated 06.02.2014 passed in civil suit titled as
Manjinder Pal Singh vs Satwant Singh & Ors (Ex-PX). Harbhajan Singh (PW-
2), Jasbir Singh (PW-3) and Vinay Katyal (PW-4) supported the version of the
plaintiffs by tendering their respective affidavits in this regard.
9. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the plaintiffs, defendant
himself appeared as DW-3 and repeated the version of his written statement.
He also tendered documents i.e., attested copy of judgment and decree dated
28.01.2012 (Ex.D-1); copy of statement of Surinder Singh (Ex.D-2); copy of
statement of Raj Kumar Lambardar (Ex.D-3/D-10); attested copy of Will
dated 07.07.1993 (Ex.D-4/D-12); endorsement on the Will (Ex.D-5); attested
copy of judgment and decree dated 14.05.2012 (Ex.D-6); attested copy of the
issues framed in the said suit (Ex.D-7); attested copy of amended plaint
(Ex.D-8); attested copy of written statement (Ex.D-9); copy of statement of
Raj Kumar Lambardar (Ex.D-10); copy of statement of Surinder Singh (Ex.D-
11); Will dated 07.07.1993 (Ex.D-4/D-12); nakalbenama dated 31.05.1994
(Ex.D-13); jamabandi for the year 1997-98 (Ex.D-14). In support of his
version defendant also examined Somnath as DW-1 and Krishan Kumar as
DW-2.
10. While answering issue No.1 and 2 collectively, learned trial
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041640
RSA-155-2018 (O&M) 5 2024:PHHC:041640
Court noted and considered material admissions made by defendant and his
witnesses, admitting the long and settled possession of the plaintiffs on the
suit property, and also observed that suit property is clearly identifiable from
the boundaries, as well as the area mentioned by the plaintiffs in the plaint.
Consequently, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendant and
his assignees/associates or anybody else on his behalf, in causing any
interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs or dispossessing them
from the suit property, forcibly and illegally, except in due course of law.
11. First appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed vide judgment
and decree dated 18.10.2016 passed in Civil Appeal No.84 of 10.12.2015 by
Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, affirming the findings of the learned trial
Court, leading to filing of the present Regular Second Appeal by the
defendant.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings of
the Courts below are indefensible in the eyes of law as they failed to
appreciate the evidences in correct perspective, whereas the appellant has been
able to establish his ownership of the house in dispute. It is stated that findings
of the Courts below are based on surmises and conjectures and are liable to be
set aside.
13. In the present case, both parties have admitted their
relationship with each other through their common ancestor Kehar Singh. The
plaintiff No. 1 Bachan Kaur is none other than the widow of Kehar Singh. The
defendant has admitted that Kehar Singh was his grandfather and owned the
suit property. The averments of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 is the grand-
mother, plaintiff No.2 is the uncle and plaintiff No.3 is cousin of the defendant
are also not in dispute by the defendant.
14. As far as the identity of the suit property is concerned, learned
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041640
RSA-155-2018 (O&M) 6 2024:PHHC:041640
Trial court has categorically observed that same is effectively established from
the record. The plaintiffs have mentioned specific boundaries and area of the
suit property and from the same the suit property is clearly identifiable. On the
other hand, defendant and his witnesses in their testimonies have not disputed
the identity of the suit property. Contrary, defendant has admitted that
plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property i.e., a house, as detailed in the
plaint, regarding which he has filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the
plaintiffs to get the house vacated from them. This admission clearly indicates
that there is no dispute regarding the identity of the suit property and also
establishes the possession of the plaintiffs on the suit property.
15. In para No.22 of the judgment, learned Trial Court categorically
observed that defendant Manjinder Pal has admitted his separate residence in
an adjacent house to the disputed property for the last 20 years. He also
admitted that plaintiffs have been residing in the disputed property for the last
15 years. Somnath DW-1, a witness of the defendant, also admitted that the
defendant is residing separately from the plaintiffs. Although, learned trial
Court observed that in judgments Avjinder Kaur Vs. Manjinder Pal Singh and
others dated 28.01.2012 (Ex.D-1) and Bachan Kaur and another Vs.
Manjinder Singh dated 14.05.2012 (Ex. D-6), defendant, Manjinder Pal Singh
was held as owner of the property left by deceased Kehar Singh on the basis
of Will dated 07.07.1993, yet concluded that defendant has failed to establish
that plaintiffs are in illegal possession of the suit property. The learned trial
Court on the basis of evidence and material evidentiary admissions made by
defendant and his witnesses, observed that plaintiffs have been able to
establish that they are in settled possession of the suit property since life time
of Kehar Singh.
16. Learned Appellate Court, in addition to considering the
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041640
RSA-155-2018 (O&M) 7 2024:PHHC:041640
admissions made by defendant and his witnesses regarding possession of the
plaintiffs in the suit property, also examined the documentary evidence
namely, ration card (Ex.P-1), Copy of telephone bill (Ex.P-2), birth certificate
(Ex.P-3), marriage certificate (Ex.P-4) presented by the plaintiffs to conclude
that plaintiffs have been residing on the disputed property for a considerable
period. The learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any infirmity
in the aforesaid findings arrived at by the Courts below on account of any
misreading or misinterpretation of the evidence.
17. It is settled position of law that in a suit where plaintiff(s)
plead(s) his lawful or peaceful possession over the suit property and as such
his possession is interfered with or threatened by the defendant(s), plaintiff is
required to establish his possession and as such has right to protect his
possession against such unlawful interference.
18. Now, coming to the facts of the present case, defendant and his
witnesses have made categorical, clear and clean admissions that Kehar Singh
was their predecessor-in-interest, who owned the suit property and that
plaintiffs have been residing in the suit property for the past more than 10-15
years and defendant is living separately with his family in another house near
to the property in dispute. These plain admissions have been rightly relied
upon by the Courts below in concluding that plaintiffs are in settled peaceful
possession of the suit property. It is a rule of law that the Court can pronounce
the judgment on the basis of clear, categorical, unequivocal admissions of
fact(s) in issue made by a party. Admissions are strong piece of evidence
against the party making it and are generally binding upon the party making it,
when same are clear and are not withdrawn or explained. Once a person is in
old settled possession of the property, he certainly cannot be evicted by force
or illegally except by due process of law.
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041640
RSA-155-2018 (O&M) 8 2024:PHHC:041640
19. All the facts and circumstances discussed above, when taken
together makes no ground to form a different opinion to bring the findings of
the learned Courts below within the realm of perversity or absurdity.
20. No other point was urged.
21. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity
in the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below, which are
based on application of oral and documentary evidence. No ground for
interference is made out much less involvement of any substantial question of
law. The findings are affirmed, accordingly. Resultantly, there is no merit in
the appeal and same is, hereby, dismissed.
22. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed
of accordingly.
(RITU TAGORE)
JUDGE
Pronounced on: 15.03.2024
Rimpal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
