Suraj Mal Etc vs Ram Kishan Etc
2025 Latest Caselaw 2858 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Suraj Mal Etc vs Ram Kishan Etc on 3 March, 2025

                                   Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030006




                                                                       Page 1 of 5

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
 201                                      RSA-4327-1999 (O&M)
                                     Date of decision: 03.03.2025

Suraj Mal & Others
                                                                ...Appellant(s)
                                       Vs.
Ram Kishan & Others
                                                              ...Respondent(s)
CORAM:             HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:-          Ms. Parul Saini, Advocate
                   Mr. Sanjay Saini, Advocate
                   Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate
                   for the appellants.

                   Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate
                   for the respondents.

                   ***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the defendants against

the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below below;;

thereby decreeing the suit for possession filed by the

respondents/plaintiffs.

2. At the very outset, it is submitted by learned co counsel unsel for

the appellants/defendants that in the present ca case there is no dispute with

respect to the ownership of the respondents/ respondents/plaintiffs over the suit

property. It is submitted that the only question to be determined herein is

whether the appellants/defendants are in illegal possession of the suit

property or as tenants on payment of batai batai.. It is submitted that the

appellants by way of cogent evidence in the form of revenue entries i.e.

jamabandis for the years 1965-66 1965 to 19855-86 86 (Ex.P2 to P6) respectively,

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030006

made it absolutely clear that the appellants are in possession of the suit

land; and in column of cultivation with effect from kharif 1961 to kharif

1988 the appellants have been recorded in possession there thereon on 1/2 batai.

Thus, they have been accepted to be in possession but on payment of 1/2

batai to the owners. It is contended that in view of the above admitted fact,,

the suit of the respondent/plaintiff could not have been decreed.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for th the e respondent/plaintiff

submits that the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants

were misleading. It is submitted that the appellants have been putting in

inconsistent pleas which cannot be entertained. The impugned judgments

and decrees suffer suffer from no infirmity; and therefore, the present appeal

deserves to be dismissed.

4. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the case file in great detail.

6. Perusal of record of the case shows that the plaintiffs

filed the present suit for possession against the defendants inter alia

pleading that plaintiff No.1 is the owner of 1/2 share of the land as detailed

and described in para No.1 of the plaint. On the death of Jage Ram, father

of the plaintiffs plaintiff No.1 to 5, his 1/2 share in the said land was mutated in the

names of the plaintiffs No.1 to 5 vide mutation No. 1848 sanctioned on

19.5.1984; and later on, the share of the plaintiffs No.2 to 5 stood

transferred erred in the name of the plaintiff No.1 as per mutation No.1871

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030006

sanctioned on 29.6.89 on the strength of a consent decree suffered by

plaintiffs No.2 to 5.

5 In this way, the plaintiff is recorded owner of 1/2 share

in the above said land. Similarly, plaintiffs plaintiffs No. 6 to 12 are recorded to be

owners of the other 1/2 share in equal share in the suit land and the said

1/2 share in the above said land has been mutated in their favour as per

mutation No. 1976 sanctioned on 29.6.1989 on the strength of registered

Will ill dated 28.4.1986 28.4.19 executed by Shri Kewal, father of plaintiffs No.6 to 11,

13 to 16 and husband of plaintiff No.12. In this way, plaintiffs No.6 to 12 are

recorded to be owners to the extent of 1/2 share in the above said land.

However, as the appellants/defendants appellant had encroached upon the suit

property, the plaintiffs had filed the present Civil Suit dated 04.02.1997 for

possession.

7. Learned Courts below have concurrently decreed the

suit of the respondents/plaintiffs in view of the admitted fact tha thatt the

appellants/defendants had previously filed a Civil Suit No.35

/90 of 1989

titled as "Suraj Mal Etc. Vs. Ram Kishan Etc."

Etc.", claiming therein to be owners

of the present suit land by way of adverse possession. Vide judgment and

decree dated 25.01.1994 (Ex.P7),, the said suit of the appellants/defendants

was dismissed holding that the appellants/defendants had not acquired

title by way of adverse possession and that they were in unauthorized

possession of the suit property. The appeal filed by the

appellants/defendants ants/defendants against the judgment and decree dated 25.01.1994

was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030006

judgment and decree dated 31.10.1996 (Ex.P9) holding that defendants

being in possession of the land therefore, their poss possession ession is protected

unless disturbed in accordance with law. It was specifically held by the

learned Additional District Judge that the appellants/defendants had not

acquired title in the suit property by adverse possession and that the

possession of the defendants is unauthorized. In judgment dated

31.10.1996 (Ex.P9) learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat held that "...I

have therefore, herefore, no reason to differ from the learned trial Court in holding

that the appellants have failed to prove that they have become the owners

of the demised land by adverse possession, their possession is protected

law...". As such, title of the suit land unless disturbed in accordance with law...".

and possession already stood adjudicated previously qua the parties vide

the above judgments judgment and decrees.

8. From the above, it is clear that the

appellants/defendants in their previously instituted suit had sought

ownership over the suit land by claiming adverse possession; whereas in

the present proceedings, plea taken by the appellants/defendants was that

they that they are in possession over the suit land as tenants on payment of

batai. It has therefore, been correctly rectly held that the appellants/defendants

are estopped by their own act and conduct from taking the plea of tenancy.

The appellants cannot retract from their previous stand which was

diametrically in opposition to the present stan stance taken by them. In fact,, the

appellants/defendants did not even appear in the witness box to

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030006

substantiate their contentions of the written statement. As such, only bald

assertions have been made by them in respect of their plea regarding

tenancy possession on payment of batai wi without thout any proof thereof.

Appellants have been unable to show that they are not in unauthorized

occupation of the suit land.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute

or controvert the aforesaid facts and findings.

10. In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed.

11. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.

03.03.2025                                           (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena                                                     Judge

 Whether speaking/reasoned:      Yes/No
 Whether reportable:             Yes/No




                                  5 of 5