Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nasib Kaur vs Gurdial Singh on 7 May, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
RSA-1598-1995 (O&M)
1
203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-1598-1995 (O&M)
Date of decision : 07.05.2024
Nasib Kaur ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Gurdial Singh ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present: Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate for
Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. V.K. Kataria, Advocate for the respondent.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. Vide order dated 11.03.2024 fresh notice was issued to the
appellant. As per the office report, the sole appellant refused to accept the
notice, however, affixation was made. Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate
appearing for the appellant states that though the appellant has not contacted
him, however, he would address arguments in the matter.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant-
appellant challenging the concurrent findings of fact returned by the Trial
Court and the First Appellate Court vide judgments and decrees dated
31.08.1992 and 04.01.1995 respectively.
integrity of this order/judgment.
RSA-1598-1995 (O&M)
3. Brief facts relevant to the present case are that the plaintiff-
respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction averring therein that the
defendant-appellant was threatening to dispossess him from the suit land
illegally and forcibly. It was further the case set up that the suit land was
shamlat land of Patti Gurditta and the plaintiff-respondent was in possession
of the same as per the khasra girdawaris from kharif 1985 to sauni 1987 and
that mutation was also sanctioned in his name. The suit was contested by the
defendant-appellant on preliminary grounds of maintainability. On merits, it
was pleaded that the suit had been filed only to harass the defendant-
appellant. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff-respondent was not in
possession of the suit land and hence was not entitled to a decree for
permanent injunction.
3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues
were framed by the Trial Court :
1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit
land ? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is
entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present
form ? OPD
4. Relief.
4. The Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree
dated 31.08.1992 holding the plaintiff-respondent to being in possession and
passed a decree that he would not be dispossessed except in due course of
integrity of this order/judgment.
RSA-1598-1995 (O&M)
law. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the defendant-
appellant which appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated
04.01.1995. Hence, the present regular second appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant would contend that
the defendant-appellant is in possession of the suit land and that the revenue
record has not been read in the correct perspective. It is urged that the Courts
have erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent
would contend that reliance was placed upon the jamabandi for the year
1987-88 (Ex.P1) and khasra girdawari for the year 1988-89 (Ex.P4) which
clearly showed the possession of the plaintiff-respondent and that the Courts
have decreed the suit after minute scrutiny of the evidence on the record.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. In the present case both the Courts found that the plaintiff-
respondent was in possession of the suit land based on the revenue
documents. Further still, it has been observed in the judgment passed by the
First Appellate Court that there was a dispute regarding the correction of the
khasra girdawari qua the suit land itself which was recorded in favour of one
Pritam Singh. Subsequently, the same was got corrected in the name of the
plaintiff-respondent. An appeal preferred by Pritam Singh was also
dismissed by the Collector, Bathinda on 07.03.1989. Yet another dispute
arose between the parties herein pertaining to mutation proceedings which
was decided by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur on
06.12.1989. The said proceedings were decided in favour of the plaintiff-
integrity of this order/judgment.
RSA-1598-1995 (O&M)
respondent. This Court is not convinced that the plaintiff-respondent had in
any manner failed to show his possession. In a suit for permanent injunction,
only the possession has to be seen. Based on the revenue record, both the
Courts have concurrently found as a matter of fact that the plaintiff-
respondent was in possession of the suit land.
9. 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.
07.05.2024 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment.
