Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balbir Singh vs Udai Singh And Ors on 24 January, 2025
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011255
RSA-2545-1993 (O&M) -1-
103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2545-1993 (O&M)
Reserved on: 13.01.2025
Pronounced on: 24.01.2025
Balbir Singh (Deceased) through LRs ...Appellant
Vs.
Ran Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Munish Kumar, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate
Mr. Sanjiv Sheoran, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate
Mr. Malwinder Singh Virk, Advocate
for respondents No. 2, 3, 5 and 6.
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. Facts of the case:-
1.1 This is defendant's regular second appeal to assail the correctness
of the First Appellate Court's judgment which in turn has reversed the judgment
of the trial Court.
1.2 In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case,
relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
1.3 The plaintiff (Sh. Udai Singh) s/o Smt. Chhoto d/o Sh. Ami Lal
filed a suit for possession of a house located in Village Dighal, Tehsil Jhajjar,
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011255
RSA-2545-1993 (O&M) -2-
District Rohtak while alleging that defendant No.1 has taken forcible
possession of the property when plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 4 were absent
from the village. The defendant is the owner in possession of the property. The
defendant contested the suit claiming that Smt. Chhoto died in the year 1976
when she was residing in Village Mangaspur, which is part of Union Territory
of Delhi. In the alternative, he claimed that he has perfected his ownership of
the house in dispute by way of an adverse possession because his possession is
continuous, hostile, notorious for more than 12 years.
1.4 The trial Court dismissed the suit, which was reversed by the First
Appellate Court.
1.5 In this case, Ex. P2 is a judgment passed in RSA No. 282 of 1975
('Balbir Singh vs. Smt. Chhoto'). Smt. Chhoto filed a suit for possession of
agricultural land measuring 06 bigas 06 biswas situated at Village Dighal,
Tehsil Jhajjar, District Rohtak against the appellant (Sh. Balbir Singh), who
defended the suit on the ground that he was collateral beyond fifth degree of
Sh. Ami Lal, who was the father of Smt. Chhoto. It was claimed by defendant
therein and appellant herein that as per Riwaj-i-am of Rohtak District, daughter
is not entitled to inherit the property. The aforesaid suit was although dismissed
by the trial Court, however, in first appeal the suit was decreed. The appellant's
regular second appeal was dismissed on 25.03.1983.
1.6 It would be noted here that Sh. Ami Lal did not have son. He left
behind Smt. Chhoto, the only daughter, who was married in Village
Mangaspur.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011255
RSA-2545-1993 (O&M) -3-
1.7 The plaintiff claimed that defendant has entered forcible
possession of the property two months before the filing of the suit.
1.8 The plaintiff examined PW/1-Sh. Khushi Ram, PW/2- Sh.
Hardwari, PW3-Udai Singh (plaintiff) and produced documents in the shape of
site plan Ex.P1 and judgment Ex.P2. On the other hand, defendant No. 1
examined DW/1-Sh. Mangat Ram, DW/2-Sh. Umed Singh, DW/3-Karan
Singh, DW4-Balbir Singh (defendant) and produced the site plan.
2. Arguments put forth:-
2.1 Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and
with their able assistance perused the paper-book alongwith the requisitioned
lower Court Record.
2.2 Leaned senior counsel representing the appellants contends that
the plaintiff failed to establish his ownership of the suit property by producing
any documentary evidence while drawing attention of the Court to
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the plaintiffs' witnesses with regard to
death and dispossession. He submits that the plaintiff has failed to prove his
case. He further submits that the plaintiff has also failed to produce voter card,
ration card, house tax receipts to prove that he was ever in possession of the
property. Judgment Ex. P2, relates to agricultural land and not the house in
question. He further submits that plaintiff has failed to produce evidence to
prove his possession within a period of 15 years preceding the suit. The
plaintiff has defended the judgment.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011255
RSA-2545-1993 (O&M) -4-
3. Discussion:-
3.1 The First Appellate Court has held that Sh. Ami Lal is proved to
be owner of the agricultural land and hence biswedar of the village. The abadi
(residential area) of village is used either by the proprietors/biswedars for
constructing their residential houses or by the persons who are doing menial
jobs in order to help the proprietors. The defendant No. 1 has not led any
evidence to prove that he was biswedar of the village. Moreover, with regard to
agricultural land, defendant No. 1 claimed the property on the ground that he is
related to Sh. Ami Lal, father of Smt. Chhoto. Defendant No. 1 failed to
substantiate his right. Thus, the First Appellate Court on the basis of oral
evidence has concluded that it is the plaintiff who is entitled to the property.
3.2 With reference to the first submission, it would be noticed that
oral evidence of PW/1-Khushi Ram, PW/2- Hardwari and PW/3-the plaintiff, is
sufficient to prove his ownership. Even, if the plaintiff has failed to prove that
he was permanently residing in the village, still that itself is not sufficient to
dismiss his suit for possession. Even, if the plaintiff was residing in village
Mangaspur, still he being the son of Smt. Chhoto has inherited the property
from Smt. Chhoto. Thus, plaintiff has filed a suit for possession as the owner.
The defendant has failed to lead any evidence to prove his ownership. He has
claimed perfection of his title by way of adverse possession in the alternative.
Thus, heavy onus lay upon the defendant to prove either his title or his adverse
possession but he failed to prove the same. Smt. Chhoto died in the year 1976.
The suit was filed in October 1987. Even, if it is assumed that he entered
possession of the house after the death of Smt. Chhoto, still 12 years did not
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011255
RSA-2545-1993 (O&M) -5-
elapse. Moreover, in the previous suit defendant claimed ownership on the
basis of inheritance being collateral of Sh. Ami Lal.
4. Decision:-
4.1 Moreover, a finding of fact has been arrived at by the First
Appellate Court. In absence of any documentary evidence to prove that the
defendant was having any right, title or interest in the house in question, this
Court does not find it appropriate to interfere. Hence the appeal is dismissed.
4.2 All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
JUDGE
24.01.2025
neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
5 of 5
