Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lal Chand Alias Lallu vs Sarbati Devi on 17 March, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:035561
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-2568-2023 (O&M)
Reserved on : 27.02.2025
Pronounced on : 17.03.2025
Lal Chand @ Lallu ....Appellant
VERSUS
Smt. Sarbati Devi ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant
challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2016 passed by the Trial
Court and the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2023 passed by the First
Appellate Court whereby the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff-
respondent stands decreed.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
respondent purchased the suit property from Lalman son of Mangal Ram vide
sale deed dated 28.04.2006 and since then she was the owner in possession
and was the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property and was
depositing the house tax also. It was averred that the defendant-appellant was
running a tea stall in a room in a passage outside the suit property. After the
owner of that room got it vacated from the defendant-appellant he (the
defendant-appellant) requested the plaintiff-respondent to give him one room
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:035561
RSA-2568-2023 (O&M) -2-
for keeping his tea making utensils and other articles during the night. The
plaintiff-respondent accepted this request. It was further averred that the
defendant-appellant had assured the plaintiff-respondent that he would vacate
the room as and when required by the plaintiff-respondent. However, when
the defendant-appellant was requested to vacate the room he refused. Hence,
the suit for possession. The defendant-appellant, who is the son of Lalman -
the vendor of the plaintiff-respondent, filed written statement raising
preliminary objections about maintainability, cause of action, locus-standi etc.
On merits he denied that the plaintiff-respondent was the owner in possession
of the suit property in view of the registered sale deed dated 28.04.2006.
Rather, a plea was taken that the suit property was the ancestral property of
the defendant-appellant and he had a right in it by birth and was the owner in
possession. It was the stand taken that in a family settlement the suit property
had come to his share and since then he was the owner in possession of the
same where he was residing with his children and also had an electricity
connection in his name. According to the defendant-appellant the vendor of
the plaintiff-respondent had no right, title or interest in the suit property and
therefore the sale deed dated 28.04.2006 was merely a paper transaction and
was illegal, null and void and liable to be set-aside.
3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues
were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek possession
of the suit property from the defendant as prayed for ?
OPP
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:035561
RSA-2568-2023 (O&M) -3-
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable
? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause
of action to file the present suit ? OPD
4. Relief.
4. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 06.12.2016
decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. Aggrieved by the decision of the
Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the defendant-appellant which appeal
was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated
03.07.2023. Hence, the present regular second appeal by the defendant-
appellant.
5. The learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has contended
that both the Courts have erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-
respondent. It is urged that the defendant-appellant was owner in possession
of the suit property as it had come to his share in a family settlement and that
there was also an electricity connection standing in his name and therefore the
suit deserved to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the defendant-appellant and perused
the record.
7. In the present case both the Courts have held that the plaintiff-
respondent was the owner of the suit property having purchased the same vide
registered sale deed dated 28.04.2006 (Ex.PW3/B). The building was raised
by the vendor of the plaintiff-respondent after getting the plan sanctioned. In
contrast, the defendant-appellant has produced nothing on the record to
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:035561
RSA-2568-2023 (O&M) -4-
establish his ownership over the suit property. Apart from the oral depositions
of the defendant-appellant and his witnesses there is nothing to prove that he
was the owner of the suit property. Further, there are no details of the alleged
family settlement mentioned in the written statement. No date or even year is
mentioned. There is no documentary evidence available to even suggest any
family settlement between the family members of the defendant-appellant. No
other family member of the defendant-appellant was produced to depose
about the alleged family settlement. Counsel for the defendant-appellant has
submitted that there is an electricity connection in his name which proves that
he is owner of the suit property. However, an application for an electricity
connection or an electricity bill is not a document of title and does not
establish ownership. The several factors which led the Courts to negative the
stand of ownership canvassed by the defendant-appellant have been dealt with
by both the Courts and the same have not been satisfactorily dislodged by
counsel for the defendant-appellant. No cogent and reliable evidence has been
pointed out by counsel for the defendant-appellant in support of the case set-
up by him. In the face of the findings recorded by both the fact finding Courts,
there is no scope for any interference by this Court. No credible and reliable
evidence has been highlighted by the counsel for the defendant-appellant for
this Court to take a contrary view from the one taken by both the Courts. In
view thereof, no fault can be found with the findings returned by both the
Courts concerned. No other point was argued.
8. In view of the discussion above, no question of law, much less
any substantial question of law, arises in the present case which requires
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:035561
RSA-2568-2023 (O&M) -5-
determination by this Court. The appeal, being devoid of any merit, is
accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
17.03.2025 (ALKA SARIN)
Ankur JUDGE
NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
