[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Saran vs Smt Shanti Devi on 16 December, 2025
RSA-2153-2000 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2153-2000 (O&M)
Reserved on : 10.12.2025
Pronounced on :16.12.2025
Uploaded on:16.12.2025
Ram Saran (Since Deceased) through his LRs and another ... Appellants
Versus
Smt. Shanti Devi ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Aeshna Jain, Advocate for the appellants.
None for the respondent.
******
VIRINDER AGGARWAL ,J.
1. The instant Regular Second Appeal (for short to be referred as
"RSA") has been instituted by the appellant-plaintiff to impugn the judgment
and decree dated 25.02.2000 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge,
Narnaul, whereby the findings of the trial Court were unequivocally affirmed.
The trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 16.03.1992 passed by the
learned Senior Sub-Judge, Narnaul, had decreed the suit instituted by the
respondent/plaintiff seeking a declaratory decree. The appellants now
challenges the concurrent findings of both Courts below as being legally
unsustainable and factually erroneous.
2. The appellant's case, as pleaded, is that the respondent/plaintiff,
Shanti, claiming to be the lawful owner of the property described in paragraph 1
of the plaint and in the site plan Ex. P-3, and asserting possession through the
defendants/appellants and other tenants, filed the suit seeking a permanent
1 of 8
injunction restraining the defendants from raising construction or interfering
with her possession. She also sought a mandatory injunction for demolition of
the construction already raised and a declaration affirming her ownership and
possession, with the defendants and others recognized as her tenants. The suit
was accordingly instituted.
3. Upon service of summons, the respondents entered appearance
through counsel and contested the claim by filing a written statement, wherein
the defendants denied the plaintiff's title and possession over the property,
asserting instead that they themselves are its owners and in exclusive
possession. In the alternative, they claimed ownership and alleged that they are
in possession as owners since last 80/90 years. Along with these assertions on
merits, they also raised certain legal objections. They accordingly prayed that
the suit be dismissed as wholly devoid of merit.
4. Subsequently, the respondent-plaintiff submitted a replication,
wherein the assertions and objections raised in the written statement were
categorically denied, while the averments and claims articulated in the plaint
were unequivocally reiterated and reaffirmed. Upon a comprehensive and
careful scrutiny of the pleadings on record, as well as the rival contentions
advanced by the parties, the Court deemed it appropriate to crystallize the
matters in controversy and, for the purposes of a systematic and legally
coherent adjudication, proceeded to frame the following issues for
determination:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession 1. of the suit property? OPP.
2. Whether the defendants are tenants in the suit property under the
plaintiff, if so to what effect? OPP.
3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
2 of 8
4. Whether the suit is bad on account of non- joinder of necessary parties ?
OPD.
5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from bringing the present suit by her
act and conduct? OPD
6. Relief.
5. Both parties were granted full opportunity to adduce evidence
pursuant to the framing of issues. Upon consideration of the entire material on
record, the learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the
respondent/plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants was
dismissed by the first appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the
appellants have approached this Court by way of the present Regular Second
Appeal.
6. The appellants has instituted the instant appeal before this Court
challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees rendered by the learned
Courts below. The appeal, upon being found to merit consideration, was
formally admitted to regular hearing, and notice was duly issued to the
respondent, however, she chose not to contest the matter any further and
remained absent at the stage of final arguments. Consequently, the appeal was
heard in its entirety on the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing
for the appellant alone.
6.1. To enable a thorough, informed, and effective adjudication of the
issues arising in the appeal, the complete record of the Courts below was
requisitioned and placed before this Court for perusal and consideration.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants at considerable
length and have bestowed anxious and thoughtful consideration upon his
submissions, keeping in view the pleadings of the parties, the evidentiary
material brought on record, and the concurrent findings returned by the Courts
3 of 8
below. The entire record has been subjected to a meticulous and comprehensive
scrutiny for the purpose of determining 'whether the impugned concurrent
judgments and decrees suffer from any jurisdictional error, manifest perversity,
misappreciation of evidence, or any other legal infirmity that would justify and
necessitate interference in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction'?
8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant with due
thoroughness and have undertaken a meticulous and comprehensive
examination of the entire record.
9. The present appeal, in its essence, culminates in the emergence of
the following 'quaestio juris substantialis' requiring authoritative determination
by this Court:-
"i. Whether both the Courts below erred in holding that the
respondent/plaintiff is the owner of the suit property?
ii. Whether the appellants were erroneously held to be tenants
in respect of the suit property?
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that
both the courts below have committed manifest illegality and patent error in law
by recording findings affirming the ownership of the respondent/plaintiff, while
completely disregarding the material and undisputed fact that the appellants are
owners in settled, continuous, and lawful possession of the suit property. It is
further submitted that, even assuming 'arguendo' that the original title did not
vest in the appellants, they have, in any event, perfected their title by way of
adverse possession through long, open, hostile, and uninterrupted possession to
the knowledge of the true owner.
4 of 8
11. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance
upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Hukum Chand and others v.
Daya Ram and others, 2015(4) PLR 776, and has contended that the Courts
below have failed to appreciate and apply the settled principle of law embodied
under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is a statutory reiteration of
the well-established Roman law maxim that possession carries a presumption of
title commonly expressed as "possession is nine points of the law." The
impugned findings, it is urged, therefore suffer from non-consideration of
relevant legal principles and material evidence on record and are liable to be set
aside.
11.1. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded findings
affirming the ownership of the suit land in favour of the respondent/plaintiff on
the basis of a judgment passed in appeal, founded upon a lawful compromise
arrived at between Shadi Nath and Parshadi Nath. As per the said judgment, a
certified copy of which has been exhibited as Ex. PW-3/B, Shadi Lal was
conclusively declared to be the owner of a two-thirds share in the Tabela, which
is the property forming the subject matter of the present dispute.
11.2. It stands duly and cogently established on record that Shanti Devi
is the wife of Vishwanath, and she has categorically deposed that Vishwanath
was the son of Shadi Nath. Significantly, this material assertion remained
wholly unchallenged during cross-examination, and in the absence of any
confrontation or rebuttal, the said fact is deemed to have been admitted in
evidence. There is, moreover, a complete lack of any contrary material or
evidence on record disputing or negating the filial relationship between
Vishwanath and Shadi Lal.
5 of 8
12. It is also an admitted position that the property in dispute is known
and described as a Tabela, a fact which has been unequivocally acknowledged
by Rohtash, one of the appellants, who appeared as RW-4 and made an express
admission to this effect in his testimony. In addition thereto, both the courts
below have rightly placed reliance upon a copy of the rent note, by virtue of
which the Tabela was let out to Sheobaksh and Mangal. The said rent note,
tendered into evidence as Ex. PW-3/A, is dated 22nd Jeth, 1974 and is a
document more than thirty years old. Consequently, in view of the statutory
presumption available under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the
courts below were fully justified in acting upon the said document without
insisting upon its formal proof.
12.1. The learned First Appellate Court, in paragraph 10 of its judgment,
has specifically observed that the said rent note is per se admissible in evidence,
being a document executed more than eight decades ago, and that there was no
necessity to prove the same by examining either the scribe or the attesting
witnesses, particularly when none of them was shown to be alive at the relevant
point of time.
12.2. It has further come on record that the appellants/defendants are
closely related to Sheobaksh and Mangal, the original tenants. In these
circumstances, their possession over the suit property has been rightly and
consistently recorded by both the courts below as that of tenants. Once the
ownership of the respondent/plaintiff stands conclusively proved on record on
the strength of the judgment Ex. PW-3/B she being the lawful successor of
Shadi Nath as his daughter-in-law and the wife of his son Vishwanath the
reliance sought to be placed by the appellants upon the decision in Hukum
Chand and others (supra) is clearly misconceived and inapplicable to the facts
6 of 8
of the present case. In that case, the factual matrix and legal issues were
materially distinct, and the ratio laid down therein does not advance the case of
the appellants herein, as is evident from the following observations:-
"Section 110 of the Evidence Act is a re- statement of Roman law
principle of the possession being nine points in law. If there is a claim to
ownership of any property of which is shown to be in possession of the
defendant then the burden of proving that he is not the owner shall be on
the person who wants the property to be recovered. A plaintiff who files
a suit for mandatory relief of injunction and for removal of construction
on the claim that the property belongs to him, literally admits the
defendant to be in possession. He cannot secure a mandatory relief
without proving that he has got better right than the defendant. As
regards the vacant land, possession invariably follows title. The relief of
preventive injunction sought by the plaintiffs in respect of a vacant land
could obtain value and credence only if he is able to show that he has
title to the property to claim such a relief."
13. In the present case, the respondent/plaintiff has successfully and
conclusively established her ownership over the suit property, as well as the
legal status of the appellants/defendants as tenants therein. In view of these
categorical and concurrent findings of fact, duly supported by documentary and
oral evidence on record, the reliance placed by the appellants upon the cited
authority is wholly misplaced and does not advance their case, the said
precedent being clearly distinguishable on facts and inapplicable to the
controversy at hand.
13.1. Having regard to the observations and conclusions recorded here-
in-above, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the impugned
judgments and decrees passed by the courts below. The appeal, being devoid of
merit and substance, is accordingly dismissed.
7 of 8
14. Since the principal appeal has now been adjudicated and stands
finally disposed of on merits, all ancillary, interlocutory, or pending
application(s), if any, are shown to be subsisting on the record shall, by
necessary implication, also stand disposed of, as no separate orders are required
thereon.
16.12.2025 (VIRINDER AGGARWAL)
Gaurav Sorot JUDGE
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
