Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harkesh Kaur Since Deceased Through Her ... vs Ravinder Singh & Another on 29 October, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141721
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-2198-2018 (O&M)
Reserved on : 15.10.2024
Pronounced on : 29.10.2024
Harkesh Kaur since deceased through her LR ....Appellant
VERSUS
Ravinder Singh & Anr. ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J.
CM-5987-C-2018
1. For the reasons mentioned therein, the application for
condoning the delay of 6 days in filing the present appeal is allowed. The
delay of 6 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
RSA-2198-2018
2. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by
plaintiff-appellant challenging the judgments and decrees dated 25.05.2017
and 22.09.2017 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
respectively dismissing her suit.
3. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-
respondents from interfering in her peaceful and lawful possession over the
suit land and for restraining the defendant-respondents from dispossessing
her from the suit land forcibly and illegally. According to the plaintiff-
appellant she was recorded as co-owner/co-sharer in the total land measuring
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141721
RSA-2198-2018 (O&M) -2-
721 Kanals 11 Marlas as per jamabandi for the year 2008-2009 and was in
peaceful, continuous, established and exclusive possession of the suit land
without any interruption for the last more than 45 years and that she had
sown paddy crop in the same. As per the plaintiff-appellant the defendant-
respondents had no right, title or concern with the suit land and they were in
possession of their respective shares on a separate part out of the suit land.
However, the defendant-respondents being greedy and quarrelsome persons,
were trying to interfere in the peaceful and lawful possession of the plaintiff-
appellant and threatening to forcibly dispossess her. Hence, the suit. In their
joint written statement the defendant-respondents raised preliminary
objections regarding maintainability, locus standi and that the plaintiff-
appellant had not come to court with clean hands. It was the stand taken that
the plaintiff-appellant was never a co-sharer in the suit land and that her
name did not figure in the column of ownership and rather some specific
Khasra numbers out of the joint Khewat of 721 Kanals 11 Marlas were
transferred in her name and that the plaintiff-appellant had sold most of the
land. It was stated that the plaintiff-appellant was not in possession of the
suit land and rather the defendant-respondent No.1 was in possession of 19
Kanals of land out of the suit land alongwith his other family members and
that the girdawari of the suit land was not as per spot and was wrongly in the
name of the plaintiff-appellant for the correction of which an application had
already been filed before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Jaitu.
Replication was filed by the plaintiff-appellant denying the averments made
in the written statement and reiterating those of the plaint.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141721
RSA-2198-2018 (O&M) -3-
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues
were framed :
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent
injunction, as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file present
suit ? OPD
3. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present
form ? OPD
4. Relief.
5. The Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree
dated 25.05.2017 holding that the plaintiff-appellant was not in exclusive
possession of the suit land and rather the entry regarding possession had
been corrected in the name of the defendant-respondent No.1 in Khasra
Nos.3196 and 3197 by the revenue authorities. Aggrieved by the judgment
and decree passed by the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the
plaintiff-appellant which appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court
vide judgment and decree dated 22.09.2017. Hence, the present regular
second appeal by plaintiff-appellant.
6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend
that both the Courts have erred in dismissing the suit. It is submitted that the
possession of the plaintiff-appellant over the suit land is proved on the
record and therefore the relief of injunction ought to have been granted to
her. According to counsel both the Courts have erred in relying upon the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141721
RSA-2198-2018 (O&M) -4-
orders passed by the revenue authorities in favour of the defendant-
respondents.
7. Heard counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and perused the record.
8. In the present case though it has vehemently been argued by the
learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that the plaintiff-appellant was in
possession of the suit land, however, he has been unable to point to any
cogent evidence on the record to establish this contention. The documents
produced by the plaintiff-appellant in the form of jamabandi and khasra
girdawari (Ex.P2 and Ex.P3) do not further the case of the plaintiff-appellant
as the revenue authorities ordered correction of the same revenue documents
vide orders Ex.D1 and D2. The said orders were not subject to challenge in
the suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has not been able to point
to any earlier revenue record showing the exclusive possession of the
plaintiff-appellant. No other point was argued.
9. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present
appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises
in the present case which requires determination by this Court. The appeal,
being devoid of any merits, is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications,
if any, also stand disposed off.
29.10.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Ankur JUDGE
NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
