Jagjit Singh And Others vs Mallu Singh
2024 Latest Caselaw 10206 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagjit Singh And Others vs Mallu Singh on 13 May, 2024

Author: Alka Sarin

Bench: Alka Sarin

                            RSA-1250-2024                                                            1

                            141

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                   CHANDIGARH

                                                                         RSA-1250-2024 (O&M)
                                                                         Reserved on : 06.05.2024
                                                                         Date of Decision : 13.05.2024


                            Jagjit Singh and Others                                          ....Appellants

                                                              VERSUS

                            Mallu Ram                                                       ....Respondent



                            CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN



                            Present :   Mr. Brijesh Nandan, Advocate for the appellants.



                            ALKA SARIN, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant-

appellants challenging the concurrent findings returned by the Trial Court

and the First Appellate Court vide judgments and decrees dated 04.12.2017

and 12.02.2024 respectively.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that the plaintiff-

respondent herein filed a suit seeking a decree of possession qua land

comprised in Rectangle No.109, Killa Nos.11(8-0), 12(8-0) and 13(6-4)

situated at Village Desu Jodha, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa of which the

defendant-appellants herein had unauthorizedly, forcibly and illegally taken

possession. It was the case set up by the plaintiff-respondent that he was in

integrity of this order/judgment.

settled possession of the suit property and that the defendant-appellants

would threaten him that they would interfere in the possession over the suit

property, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent filed a civil suit bearing No.398

of 2010-2013 regarding the suit land to restrain the defendant-appellants

from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-respondent over the suit

property. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court vide judgment and

decree dated 07.11.2013. The plaintiff-respondent was declared to be in

possession of the suit property. Thereafter, in the year 2014 the defendant-

appellants succeeded in encroaching upon the suit property forcibly and

illegally. It was further averred that the defendant-appellants thereafter also

filed a suit for correction of the khasra girdawari regarding the suit property

in collusion with the revenue officials and succeeded in getting an order in

this regard from the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Dabwali on 29.09.2010.

However, the order passed by the Revenue Court was subject to the

judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court on 07.11.2013. Hence, the

present suit for possession. On notice the defendant-appellants filed their

written statement and relied on the order passed by the Revenue Court on

29.09.2010 and took the stand that they were in possession over the suit

property and the khasra girdawari had been corrected in their name.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues

were framed :

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of possession,

as prayed for ? OPP

integrity of this order/judgment.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of

permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable

in the present form ? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and

has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD

5. Relief.

4. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 04.12.2017

decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the

defendant-appellants which appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and

decree dated 12.02.2024. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants would contend

that both the Courts have erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-

respondent. It is submitted that the defendant-appellants were in possession

of the suit property and that the revenue authorities had also corrected the

khasra girdawari in their name. It is further the contention of the learned

counsel for the defendant-appellants that the suit itself was barred by the

provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)

Act, 1961.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant-appellants.

7. In the present case, undisputedly the plaintiff-respondent herein

had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-

appellants. The said suit was decreed in his favour wherein it was found that

the plaintiff-respondent was in settled possession of the suit property.

integrity of this order/judgment.

Subsequently, in 2014 the defendant-appellants succeeded in taking

possession of the suit property and hence the present suit was filed by the

plaintiff-respondent to regain the possession of the suit property in which he

was held to be in settled possession. The argument of the learned counsel

that khasra girdawari stood corrected in the name of the defendant-

appellants would be of no help as there was a judgment and decree by the

civil court in which the parties were the same and subject matter of the suit

was also the same. In the said earlier suit, which was produced on the record

as Ex.P1, it was categorically held that the plaintiff-respondent was in settled

possession of the suit land. The reliance of the learned counsel for the

defendant-appellants on the order passed by the revenue court would not

come to the rescue of the defendant-appellants inasmuch as the said order

dated 29.09.2010 specifically stated that the revenue court order was subject

to the judgment and decree passed by the civil court. The plaintiff-

respondent has not sought any declaration regarding his ownership over the

suit property but is only seeking possession on the basis of the earlier

judgment and decree (Ex.P1) wherein he was held to be in settled

possession. The argument by the learned counsel for the defendant-

appellants that the suit itself was barred by the provisions of Section 13 of

the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 is also to be

rejected. A perusal of the grounds of appeal filed before the First Appellate

Court shows that no such ground was raised before it. Further, issue no.3

regarding maintainability of the suit was not even pressed by the counsel for

the defendant-appellants before the Trial Court. No other point was argued.

integrity of this order/judgment.

8. In view of the above, no fault can be found with the judgments

and decrees passed by both the Courts. No question of law, much less any

substantial question of law, arises in the present case. The appeal being

devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any,

also stand disposed off.

( ALKA SARIN ) 13.05.2024 JUDGE Yogesh Sharma

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

integrity of this order/judgment.