Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) M.C.Jallandhar vs Dina Nath Etc on 18 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040641
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2234 of 1988 (O&M)
Date of Order:18.03.2024
Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar
.Appellant
Versus
Dina Nata (since deceased) through LRs and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Gaurav Goyal, Advocate
for respondent no.1.
Mr. Kanav Singla, Advocate
for respondent nos.2 and 3.
Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate,
Ms. Khushi Suryavanshi, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Bhardwaj, Advocate
for Praduman Krishan Moudgill, Advocate
for respondent no.4
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. This is the defendant's regular second appeal against the
judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, which in turn has
reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
2. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
3. In the beginning, the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, (the
appellant) leased out the suit property to the plaintiff, namely Sh. Dina Nath.
However, subsequently, he stopped paying the rent. The Municipal
Corporation, Jalandhar, initiated proceedings against the plaintiff for his
ejectment under the Punjab Public Premises Act, which was allowed by the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040641
Collector, Jalandhar. The correctness thereof was upheld in appeal by the
Commissioner, Jalandhar. Thereafter, the plaintiff-Sh. Dina Nath filed a suit
for grant of decree of declaration to the effect that he is the owner in
possession of the property and the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, has no
right to dispossess him. In substance, the plaintiff claims that the property is
owned by the Rehabilitation Department of the State and he has been
allotted the aforesaid suit property on 15.01.1982, for a total amount of
Rs.1,09,167/-. He produced receipt evidencing payment of Rs.2,000/-.
4. The State of Punjab and the Tehsildar, Rehabilitation
Department claims that the suit property vests in the Rehabilitation
Department.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration
proved for on the grounds mentioned in the plaint?OPP
2. Whether this court has jurisdiction to try the present
suit?OPP
3. Whether the suit in the present form is not
maintainable?OPD
4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the
necessary parties?OPD
5. Relief."
6. Ultimately, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. The plaintiff filed
first appeal. The First Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree
passed by the trial court.
7. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book along
with the requisitioned record.
8. The learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040641
plaintiff has not proved that he has paid the entire sale amount. He submits
that the State of Punjab has filed an affidavit clarifying that the plaintiff has
only deposited Rs.2,000/- and never paid any further amount. He further
contends that the plaintiff could not deny the title of the Municipal
Corporation and if he wants to deny, he has to first surrender the possession
back to the Municipal Corporation.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent
(plaintiff) contends that the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, is not the
owner of the property and therefore, the First Appellate Court has correctly
decreed his suit.
10. Sh. Lupil Gupta, Advocate, claims that the property has been
gifted by an unregistered gift deed on 16.3.2015, by the plaintiff in favour of
a Gurudwara Singh Sabha and therefore, this court should not interfere.
11. The learned counsel representing the State of Punjab submits
that the plaintiff has not paid any amount after initial deposit of Rs.2,000/-.
12. It is evident that the First Appellate Court has misdirected while
observing that the key question which requires adjudication as to whether
the Municipal Corporation is the owner of the property or not?
13. This was not the issue involved in the present case. It is evident
that the plaintiff was required to prove that he was owner in possession.
However, the plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove that any
conveyance deed was executed in his favour. He has also failed to prove
that he has paid any further amount after deposit of initial amount of
Rs.2,000/-
14. It may be noted here that the plaintiff does not dispute that he
entered into possession of the property after taking the same on lease from
Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act,
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040641
1872, estops the plaintiff from denying title of his landlord. If he wants to
deny the title, he has to first surrender the possession back to the Municipal
Corporation.
15. In this suit, the inter-se dispute between the Municipal
Corporation, Jalandhar, on one hand and the State of Punjab on the other
hand is not subject matter of dispute. There is no inter-se issue between two
different defendants.
16. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that the
First Appellate Court has failed to properly appreciate the pivotal point
which required adjudication. Similarly, the Gurudwara Singh Sabha claims
property on the basis of unregistered gift deed which is not permissible. A
gift deed of immovable property can only be executed only through
registered document. In any case, the plaintiff has no title. Hence, he
cannot transfer any title in favour of Gurudwara Singh Sabha.
17. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the judgment and
decree passed by the First Appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial
court is restored.
18. The appeal stands allowed, accordingly.
19. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
March 18, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
4 of 4
