Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shri Munshi vs Baldev Singh on 21 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047813
RSA No.473 of 1989 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.473 of 1989 (O&M)
Date of Order:21.03.2024
Munshi
.Appellant
Versus
Baldev Singh (Deceased) through LRs ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. B.S.Jaswal, Advocate
for the appellant.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. In this regular second appeal, the plaintiff assails the correctness
of 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 issues involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be considered.
3. The appellant-Munshi Ram filed a suit for grant of decree of
permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his
peaceful possession with respect to land measuring 2 kanals and 2 marlas
comprised in khasra no.543. The appellant asserts that on the disputed land
he has planted various fruit trees and plants and the defendant has no right,
title or interest in the suit land. In the alternative, the plaintiff claims that he
is owner by way of adverse possession.
4. The defendant while contesting the case claimed that on
06.07.1966, the plaintiff exchanged the suit land comprised in khasra no.543
with 543/2 and the mutation to this effect was entered in the revenue record
which however, was not subsequently reflected in the jamabandies resulting
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047813
in confusion. It was also projected that in the year 1985, the plaintiff filed
an application before the Assistant Collector, Pathankot, for demarcation and
it was found that the plaintiff is not in possession of the total suit land,
though he was found in possession of some part of the disputed property
thereof.
5. The trial court decreed the suit, however, the First Appellate
Court upon re-appreciation of evidence came to a conclusion that the
plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. The correctness of the
aforesaid judgment has been challenged in this appeal.
6. The learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the
plaintiff has only filed a suit for grant of permanent injunction and as per
the revenue records, the plaintiff is owner in possession of the property. He
submits that in such circumstances, the First Appellate Court has erred in
reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
7. This court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the parties.
8. In fact, the entire dispute is result of failure on the part of the
revenue authorities to give effect to the mutation entry sanctioned on
06.07.1966 in new jamabandis. As per the aforesaid mutation entry, the
plaintiff received land measuring 2 kanals and 2 marlas in khasra no.544 in
lieu of the land comprised in khasra no.543. The aforesaid evidence has
been produced and proved before the courts below. Thus, the plaintiff
cannot claim to be an owner in possession of the property. Moreover, the
plaintiff in alternative claims that he has perfected his title by way of adverse
possession.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court does not
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047813
find it appropriate to grant declaration to the plaintiff that he has become
owner by way of adverse possession. The judgment of the First Appellate
Court is based upon the appreciation of evidence and it does not suffer from
any substantive error or perversity.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground
to interfere is made out.
11. Dismissed.
12. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
March 21, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
3 of 3
