Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh And Others vs Jasbir Kaur And Others on 19 November, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150273
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-1344-2020 (O&M)
Reserved on : 12.11.2024
Pronounced on : 19.11.2024
Ranjit Singh & Ors. ....Appellants
VERSUS
Jasbir Kaur & Ors. ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. V. K. Sandhir, Advocate for the appellants.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the
plaintiff-appellants against the judgements and decrees dated 30.09.2016 and
19.10.2019 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
dismissing their suit for possession and decreeing the counter-claim filed by
the defendant-respondent No.10.
2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellants averring that the
suit land was originally owned by their ancestor Kartar Kaur wife of Budh
Singh. After the death of Kartar Kaur the suit land had come to her different
branches in different shares. During her lifetime Kartar Kaur had given the
suit land on lease to defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 3 and others. However,
the lessees had started repudiating the tenancy and refused to accept the
plaintiff-appellants as their landlords and also refused to give a share of the
produce. Hence, the present suit for possession of the suit land. In her
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150273
RSA-1344-2020 (O&M) [2]
written statement the defendant-respondent No.10 raised preliminary
objections regarding maintainability, limitation, non-joinder of necessary
parties, etc. On merits it was denied Kartar Kaur had given the suit land on
lease. The inheritance of the estate of Kartar Kaur by the plaintiff-appellants
was denied. It was submitted that Mohinder Singh s/o Budh Singh was a co-
sharer in the Khata and he being co sharer/co-owner of 5 kanal 14 marla of
land had sold it to the defendant-respondent No.10 vide sale deed dated
04.05.1992. Defendant-respondent No.10 also filed a counter-claim seeking
a declaration that she was the owner in possession of land measuring 5 kanal
14 marla with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the
plaintiff-appellants from interfering in her possession. Separate written
statement was filed by some of the other defendant-respondents.
3. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed :
I) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of
possession of the suit land as prayed for in the head note
of the plaint ? OPP
II) Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court
with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts
from the court ? OPD
III) Whether the suit has not been valued properly for
the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD
IV) Whether the counter claimant is owner in
possession of the suit land as prayed for in the counter
claim ? OPD counter-claimant
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150273
RSA-1344-2020 (O&M) [3]
V) Whether the counter claim is legally not
maintainable ? OPP
VI) Whether the counter claim is also not properly
valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ?
OPP
VII) Relief.
4. Vide judgement and decree dated 30.09.2016 the Trial Court
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants. However, the counter-claim of
the defendant-respondent No.10 was decreed and she was declared as owner
in possession of the land measuring 5 kanal 14 marla and the plaintiff-
appellants were restrained from interfering in the lawful possession of the
counter claimant illegally, forcibly and otherwise than in due course of law.
The appeal of the plaintiff-appellants challenging the dismissal of their suit
and acceptance of the counter-claim was also dismissed by the First
Appellate Court vide judgement and decree dated 19.10.2019. Hence, the
present regular second appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has contended that
both the Courts have erred in dismissing the suit and decreeing the counter-
claim. It is urged that the suit land was inherited by the plaintiff-appellants
from Kartar Kaur and that the defendant-respondents were tenants on it.
Since the defendant-respondents were denying their tenancy, the plaintiff-
appellants were entitled to possession of the suit land.
6. Heard counsel for the plaintiff-appellants and perused the
record.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150273
RSA-1344-2020 (O&M) [4]
7. In the present case the plaintiff-appellants have been unable to
prove that the suit land was inherited by them from Kartar Kaur. They could
not prove the Wills set-up by them. Further, if the status of the defendant-
respondents was that of tenants then the remedy to evict them was before the
revenue authorities and not the civil court. Still further, the defendant-
respondent No.10 successfully proved the sale deed in her favour qua land
measuring 5 kanal 14 marla. Apart from the oral testimonies, the plaintiff-
appellants could not establish from any documentary evidence their right,
title or interest in the suit land. The Trial Court found that "The plaintiff has
to stand on his own legs and whatever he is contending has to be proved by
him on the basis of oral or documentary evidence, whatsoever and in the
lack of that evidence the claim of the plaintiff does not sustain. Neither the
Will, as alleged, nor the lease deed, as alleged, has been duly proved in
order to substantiate the claim as raised by the plaintiffs". Learned counsel
for the plaintiff-appellants is unable to point to any cogent and reliable
evidence on the record to show that the suit land was owned by them having
devolved on them on the death of Kartar Kaur. In the absence of such
reliable evidence, the findings recorded by both the Courts cannot be faulted.
Further, the sale deed in favour of the defendant-respondent No.10 has been
proved and nothing has been pointed out to dislodge the findings recorded
by both the Courts in this regard. No other point was argued.
8. In view of the above, no mistake or error of law or facts 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
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150273
RSA-1344-2020 (O&M) [5]
present case. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
19.11.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Ankur JUDGE
NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
