Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Singh vs Assish Goyal And Ors on 6 November, 2025
RSA-1684-2019 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
109 RSA-1684-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision: 06.11.2025
Paramjit Singh ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Assish Goyal and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. R.S.Rangpuri, Advocate for the appellant.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-4508-C-2019
Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 CPC is for
condonation of delay of 136 days in refiling the accompanying appeal.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly
supported by an affidavit of the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant,
the same is allowed and delay of 136 days in refiling the accompanying
appeal is condoned.
RSA-1684-2019 (O&M)
Present Second Appeal has been filed by defendant No.5
against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts
below, whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2, for
declaration and permanent injunction, has been decreed by both the
Courts below.
RSA-1684-2019 (O&M) -2-
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs had filed a suit
seeking declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the
shop No.65, measuring 16'x65' in dilapidated condition bounded as
under:-
East: Harsh Chander 105'
West: Roop Lal and his wife Suresh Rani 105'
North: Street 16' Concrete Built Road,
Sourth: Street 16' Bitumen Mateled Road, situated in Mandi Sachdev Ganj
Lakhewali, Tehsil Sri Muktsar Sahib;
and suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering
into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property.
3. The facts as pleaded in the plaint were that a grain market by
the name of Sachdev Ganj was carved out in the year 1940-41 at village
Lakhewali by Tulsi Ram, Dhannu Mal, Ram Nath and Kishan Singh,
predecessor of the defendants. It was stated that Tulsi Ram, Dhannu Mal
and Ram Nath were not having cordial relations with Kishan Singh. As
such, they filed Civil Suit No. 102/238 of 1950 titled as Tulsi Ram etc. vs.
Kishan Singh, before the Sub Judge, Ferozepur for partition of the
remaining joint property by metes and bounds; in which after contest
preliminary decree was passed on 11.07.1951. Thereafter, Local
Commissioner was appointed who submitted his detailed report in the
Court, mentioning the details of the properties which fell to the share of
each person; on the basis of which schedules were prepared and site plan
Ex.C-1 was submitted, which was signed by the said four persons and
counter signed by the Local Commissioner; on the basis of which final
decree dated 24.10.1951 was passed. The site plan Ex.C1 comprises of
RSA-1684-2019 (O&M) -3-
whole property of Sachdev Ganj Mandi, Lakhewali and each shop and plot
was marked by serial numbers; and shop No. 65 to 69 fell to the share of
Tulsi Ram as per above said partition. It was further averred that Tulsi Ram
remained owner in possession of plot No. 65 and transferred the same to
Lajwanti wife of Chuni Lal by way of registered Sale Deed dated
27.07.1966. Lajwanti had died and her property was inherited by Krishan
Lal, Raj Kumar, and Manohar Lal, who sold the same to the plaintiffs vide
registered Sale Deed dated 10.03.2008 and delivered possession to the
plaintiffs in dilapidated condition alongwith electric and water connection.
4. It was further pleaded that there were consolidation
proceedings in the village and total area under Sachdev Ganj Mandi was
kept reserved; and new numbers in Jamabandi were wrongly carved out
due to which certain wrong entries had appeared in Jamabandi. It was
averred that shops were purchased by different persons who are running
Commission Agents shops; and Jamabandi, if any, that came into existence
had lost its significance and entries in the Jamabandi were null and void. It
was further pleaded that plaintiffs are bonafide purchasers for
consideration of the suit shops without notice of any title of defendants
and are in possession of the suit property. As such, title of the plaintiffs is
protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. However, the
defendants had threatened the plaintiffs few days back. It was further
pleaded that plaintiffs had sold the property by way of Sale Deeds dated
19.11.2012 to Anju Rani who re-transferred the same to the plaintiffs vide
two registered Sale Deeds dated 23.04.2013. The plaintiffs had got
RSA-1684-2019 (O&M) -4-
sanction letter for constructing the building for Punjab National Bank, and
sanction letter was delivered to the defendants as earlier the building was
owned by Bhupinder Kaur defendant was on lease with the Punjab
National Bank. It has been further stated that all the defendants are
successors-in-interest of Kishan Singh and Kishan Singh was one of the
founder of Mandi Sachdev Ganj. Hence present suit was filed on
07.10.2014.
5. Upon notice, defendants No. 1 to 5, 7 and 8 appeared and
resisted the suit by filing joint written statement inter alia stated that the
suit was barred by limitation. It was stated that in fact the plaintiffs filed a
civil suit titled as Ashish Goyal etc Versus Paramjit Singh etc. Ex.P21
(available at page 21 of LCR) for permanent injunction against the
answering defendant No.5 Paramjit Singh, his two brothers Lal Singh, Zora
Singh, and Gurcharan Singh who is husband of answering defendant No.1
and father of answering defendants No.2&3; on the basis of sale deed
No.495 dated 10.03.2008 in which the plaintiffs claimed that they are
owners in possession of land measuring 6 Marlas 2 Sarsahi, 56/378 share
out of total land measuring 2 Kanal 2 Marlas comprised in Khewat No.552
Khatauni No.867 and Khasra No.658(2-2) as per jamabandi for the year
2003-2004 of the revenue estate of Village Lakhewali and the sides are
same as mentioned in the present suit. It was further stated that the
answering defendant No.5 Paramjit Singh filed suit for permanent
injunction against the plaintiffs titled as Paramjit Singh Versus Ashish
Goyal etc. Ex.P34 (available at page 209 of LCR) and in reply of that suit
RSA-1684-2019 (O&M) -5-
the plaintiffs in para No.1 of the preliminary objections of written
statement filed by the present plaintiffs mentioned that "the defendants
No.1&2 undertakes to demolish the building constructed on their plot in
case the answering defendants are not found to be owners of this
property Plot No.65, which is a part of Khasra No.658 and mutation to this
effect was duly sanctioned in favour of Krishan Lal etc, and thereafter in
favour of answering defendants which find mention in the copy of
jamabandi for the year 2003-2004. It was further stated that in fact the
property of the plaintiffs is in Khasra No.658(2-2) of Village Lakhewali and
the sides mentioned by the plaintiffs in this suit as well as in the previous
suit are wrong. The sides mentioned by the plaintiffs is the property of
answering defendants, which bearing Khewat No.423, Khatauni No.672
Khasra No.660(0-6), situated in Village Lakhewali, as per the jamabandi for
the year 2003-2004. The suit titled as Ashish Goyal etc Versus Paramjit
Singh etc was withdrawn by the plaintiffs on 04.10.2014 at the stage when
final arguments were already completed. On merits it is stated that no
Mandi in the name of Sachdev Ganj was carved out in the year 1940-41 at
Mandi Lakhewali. In fact Tulsi Ram, Dhannu Mal, Ram Nath and Krishan
Singh predecessor of the defendants made the shops in their own
property in the shape of market at Village Lakhewali. It has been further
stated that owners of property of Lakhewali gave their land to Mandi
Board for Mandi Board Office and for auction platform for selling of crops,
which is now in possession of Mandi Board and the property of Mandi
Board also reflected in Jamabandi. It was further stated that the property
RSA-1684-2019 (O&M) -6-
of above said four persons was partitioned and after partition the order of
partition was implemented in the jamabandi and now the above said four
persons have their separate shares shown in the Jamabandi as per
partition. It was stated that after partition all the property numbers were
incorporated in the revenue record after consolidation and new numbers
came into existence in the jamabandi. It was stated that shops were
constructed by the above said four persons and the houses were
constructed on the property which was sold by the above said persons
except the predecessor of the answering defendants. Till date jamabandi
is in existence and the property purchased by the plaintiffs is also as per
jamabandi for the year 2008-2009. It was stated that Tulsi Ram was not
owner of plot No.65. All the property of the Village Lakhewali was
mentioned in Jamabandi and if Tulsi Ram had any property it was
mentioned in the Jamabandi and the wrong act of Tulsi Ram regarding
transfer of plot No.65, which was not in existence on 27.07.1996 is not
binding on the defendants. The sale deed dated 10.03.2008 was without
any numbers. It was stated that after consolidation proceedings all the
property of Village Lakhewali was given new numbers in revenue record
and no area was kept reserve at Village Lakhewali. It has been further
stated that the property purchased by the plaintiffs on 24.04.2013 bearing
Khewat No.612, Khatauni No.930, Khasra No,658(202) as per jamabandi
for the year 2008-09 situated in the area of Village Lakhewali and the
sides mentioned by the plaintiffs in this suit as well as in the previous suit
are wrong. The sides mentioned by the plaintiffs is the property of
RSA-1684-2019 (O&M) -7-
answering defendants, which bearing Khewat No.423, Khatauni No.672
Khasra No.660(0-6), situated in Village Lakhewali, as per jamabandi for the
year 2003-2004. While denying other averments of the plaint, a prayer for
dismissal of the suit has also been made.
6. Plaintiffs filed replication re-asserting the averments made in
the plaint and denying those made in the written statement.
7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed:-
"1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to relief for declaration as
prayed for?OPP
2. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to relief of permanent
injunction as being prayed for?OPP
3. Whether cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff to file the
present suit ?OPP
4. Whether said suit is barred by law of limitation?OPD
5. Whether plaintiffs have concealed the material facts from
the Court?OPD
6. Whether the property of the plaintiffs is in Khasra No.658(2-
2) of Village Lakhewali and the sides mentioned by the
plaintiffs are wrong?OPD
7. Relief."
8. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the
parties, vide judgment and decree dated 08.02.2017, the learned
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sri Muktsar Sahib had decreed the
suit of the plaintiffs with costs "to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners
in possession of Shop. No.65, measuring 16'x 105' bearing boundaries as
fully detailed in the head note of the plaint situated in Mandi Sachdev
RSA-1684-2019 (O&M) -8-
Ganj Lakhewali, Tehsil Sri Muktsar Sahib, and the defendants have no
right or interest in the said property and entries in the Jamabandi for the
year 2008-2009 are wrong, illegal and void and the Jamabandi has lost its
significance due to the carving out of Mandi and the property is no longer
under cultivation and stands built up and entries are null and void and
have been wrongly prepared during consolidation proceedings and the
defendants are permanently restrained from interfering into the peaceful
possession of the property mentioned in the head note of the plaint or
evicting them forcibly or transferring the property to third person by sale,
gift, mortgage or by suffering a court decree." The appeal filed by
defendant No.5 was dismissed with costs by the learned Additional
District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide judgment and decree dated
17.05.2018. Hence, the present second appeal by defendant No.5.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant assails concurrent findings
of learned Courts below by submitting that the Id. courts below have
failed to to go into the actual facts and failed to appreciate that had there
been partition of the suit property that would have reflected in the
jamabandi. Since the Mandi was alleged to be carved out in the year 1940,
it is highly unbelievable that for such a long period entries in the
jamabandi regarding partition would not be reflected by the concerned
party, therefore the plaintiffs-respondents have failed to connect their
property with the suit property, as such the findings of ld. courts below
are liable to be set aside.
RSA-1684-2019 (O&M) -9-
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the ld. courts
below have failed to observe that as per law, the plaintiffs-respondents
were required to stand on their own legs and to prove their case at its
own, by producing cogent and convincing evidence and they were not at
all required to take any benefit from the evidence of the defendants nor
any such benefit can be legally given to him. The ld. courts below have
failed to consider that the evidence led by the plaintiffs is beyond
pleadings and the same cannot be read into evidence. But the ld. courts
below have wrongly relied upon the oral and documentary evidence of
the plaintiffs. Thus, the findings of both the courts below are perverse,
arbitrary and based on misreading of evidence on record, hence are liable
to be set aside.
11. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed;
and the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below be set
aside.
12. No other argument is raised on behalf of the
appellant/defendant No.5. I have heard learned counsel and perused the
case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on
behalf of the appellant.
13. A perusal of the record of the case shows that plaintiffs have
succeeded in proving their case beyond doubt as very comprehensively,
coherently and successfully encapsulated by the Court's below in their
respective judgments. The relevant findings of the Trial Court are
RSA-1684-2019 (O&M) - 10 -
contained in para 11 of the judgment dated 08.02.2017, which reads as
under: -
"11. Now by way of present suit, the plaintiffs are claiming
declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of
Shop No.65 as mentioned in the head note of the plaint
situated at Mandi Sachdev Ganj Lakhewali and that the
entires in the Jamabandi for the year 2008-2009 are illegal
and void and has no effect on the rights of the plaintiffs over
the suit property. The plaintiffs are further claiming relief of
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over
the suit property. After going through the written statement
filed by the defendants, it is denied that Grain Market in the
name of Sachdev Ganj was carved out at Village Lakhewali in
the year 1940-41. However, this fact has not been
categorically denied by the defendant in his cross-
examination. After going through the application dated 08-
04-1950 moved by Tulsi Ram against Kishan Singh for
partition Ex.P16, it transpires that Civil Suit for partition was
filed by Tulsi Ram and vide Judgment dated 11-07-1951 Ex.
P17 passed by the then Sub Judge 1st Class, Ferozepur, a
Preliminary Decree was passed with regard to Khasra
Numbers mentioned in the application Ex.P16 and Shri
Chander Mohan, Advocate, Ferozepur was appointed as Local
Commissioner to suggest the mode of partition. Further
more, after going through the Orders Ex.P18 to Ex.P23, a
Final Decree was passed by the then Id. Sub Judge 1st Class,
on the basis of Report Ex.P25 submitted by the Local
Commissioner, the Punjabi Translation of which has been
proved as Ex.P26. As per Sale Deed dated 28-07-1966 proved
on record as Ex.P10/A executed by Tulsi Ram in favour of
RSA-1684-2019 (O&M) - 11 -
Lajwanti, the Plot No.65 was sold by him in favour of Lajwanti
by mentioning its specific sides. It is pertinent to mention that
no Khasra Number was mentioned in the said Sale Deed. It
was only to be so because the land had already been
partitioned on the Order of Sub Judge Ist Class, as already
discussed above. Furthermore, after going through the
testimony of PW4 Gurinder Arora, who had proved on record
the Sale Deed dated 10-03-2008 Ex. P1. The said Sale Deed
has been executed by Krishan Lal, Raj Kumar and Manohar
Lal in favour of plaintiffs Ashish Goyal, and Suman Lata. The
said Sale Deed has also been executed after mentioning
specific boundaries as detailed therein and no mention
whatsoever of any Khasra Number has been made therein.
Further more, as per copy of Sale Deeds dated 19-11-2012
Ex.P13/A and Ex. P14/A executed by plaintiffs in favour of
Anju Rani, it transpires that property in dispute was sold by
them in favour of Anju Rani by mentioning the specific
boundaries as mentioned in the Sale Deed Ex.P1. As per
copies of Sale Deed dated 25-04-2013 proved on record as
Ex.P8/A and Ex.P9/A. The plaintiff again re-purchased the
property from Anju Rani by mentioning specific boundaries.
The boundaries in all the referred above said Sale Deeds tally
with each other. Rather DW1 Bhan Chand, Revenue Patwari
in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that as
per Jamabandi for the year 1961-62 Ex. PX Khasra Number
658 was carved out in lieu of old Khasra Number 1886/1481.
It is further pertinent to mention that at the time of
submitting Report Ex.P25 by the Local Commissioner
suggesting the Mode of Partition, he also submitted the site
plan Ex.P33 and accordingly the plots were carved out in the
the area of Grain Maket Sachdev Ganj. Even otherwise, DW1
Bhan Chand Revenue Patwari has admitted in his cross-
RSA-1684-2019 (O&M) - 12 -
examination that he has only deposed as per record, but
actually shops and houses have been carved out in the area
in which the property in dispute is situated and has further
admitted that actually position at the spot does not tally with
the revenue record produced by him. Similar is the reply of
defendant Dhanwant Singh examined as DW2. It is pertinent
to mention that said witness is cited as defendant No.9 in the
present suit but has been proceeded against exparte on 17-
03-2015. Therefore, Dhanwant Singh did not prefer to appear
before this Court despite service to file written statement
challenging the averments put forth in the plaint and thus his
testimony as DW2 is of no consequence. Moreover, as per
para No.6 of the written statement, it is admitted that
partition took place. It is further admitted that the shops and
houses were constructed by Tulsi Ram and others after
partition. From the Sale Deeds already discussed above, it is
proved on record that Mandi Sachdev Ganj came into
existence from the year 1940-41 and Sale of the property is
being made in the said year is made by referring to the
shops/houses number including boundary and by not giving
the detail of the revenue record. It is settled principle of law
that the entries in the revenue record are not substantive
piece of evidence as far as detail of the properties is
concerned. Therefore, in the present case the substantive
piece of evidence is the Sale Deed proved by the plaintiffs in
their favour. Moreover, where the entries in the revenue
record are against the facts actually existing at the spot,
same lose their significance. Reliance in this regard can be
placed upon Daropdi Versus Kanhiya & Ors., 2007(1) Civil
Court Cases 73(P&H), whereby Hon'ble Punjab &Haryana
High Court has observed that "The plaintiff appellant was,
thus, rightly, not held to be in possession of the disputed
RSA-1684-2019 (O&M) - 13 -
property and Kanhiya defendant-respondent was held to be
in possession of the same. In this view of the matter, entries
in jamabandi etc. lose significance altogether as the same are
against facts. Otherwise also, such entries are relevant when
land to which those pertain is under cultivation, and not
when a residential house is constructed thereon". Similar
observations have been made by Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh
High Court in 2009(1) Civil Court Cases 766 (A.P.). Keeping in
view the aforesaid discussion, all these issues are decided in
favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants."
(Emphasis added)
14. The said findings have been affirmed by learned First
Appellate Court as follows:-
"14......................It also has come into the evidence that one
of the co-sharer Tulsi Ram had moved an application for
partition dated 08.04.1950 (Ex.P16) against co-sharer Kishan
Singh. Civil suit for partition was filed by Tulsi Ram and same
ended up in passing of preliminary decree (Ex.P17) passed by
the Court of the then Sub Judge First Class, Ferozepur.
Thereafter, Chander Mohan, Advocate from Ferozepur was
appointed as Local Commissioner to suggest mode of
partition and report (Ex.P25) (Punjabi translation version
thereof is proved as Ex.P26) was submitted by Local
Commissioner. Local Commissioner also submitted site plan
(Ex.P33) which was duly approved and adopted by Court and
the final decree for partition accordingly was passed vide
judgment dated 24.10.1951. In other words, after passing of
final decree, in which site plan (Ex.P33) was made part, the
entire area of Mandi Lakhewali was no longer identifiable by
Khasra numbers etcetera. The revenue department has failed
RSA-1684-2019 (O&M) - 14 -
to implement this site plan in the revenue record despite the
fact that no higher Court of competent jurisdiction ever set
aside the final decree dated 24.10.1951, after which all the
co-sharers were given possession of their separate shares.
15. Further, as per sale deed dated 28.07.1996 (Ex.P10/A)
Lajwanti had purchased a plot number 65 from Tulsi Ram and
no Khasra number was mentioned in the sale deed for this
simple reason that Tulsi Ram had separated his share in
terms of Final Decree in which site plan was made part
thereof and property was now identifiable by specific plot
numbers and no more by Khasra numbers. It has come into
evidence that Lajwanti has died and her legal heirs namely
Krishan Lal, Raj Kumar and Manohar Lal sold the land in
favour of the respondent no.1 and 2 vide sale deed dated
10.03.2008 (Ex.P1). In this sale deed also, there is no mention
of any Khasra number and only specific boundary has been
detailed. Thereafter, vide sale deeds (Ex.P13/A and Ex.P14/A)
dated 19.11.2012, the respondents sold the land in favour of
Anju Rani by mentioning specific boundaries. This land was
again re-purchased by respondents vide sale deeds (Ex.P8/A
and Ex.P9/A) dated 25.04.2013. Thus, it sufficiently stands
proved that property in the hands of respondent no.1 and 2
has come out of land owned by Tulsi Ram, which he has got
in partition. Obviously, appellant who is one of the legal heirs
of Kishan Singh (one of co-founders of Mandi) has got no
concern with the same as Kishan Singh never got this
property in his share. Revenue record obviously do not reflect
the final decree passed by Civil Court of competent
jurisdiction and this fact is also so admitted by Revenue
Patwari Bhan Chand (DW-1) who has admitted in his cross
examination that shops and houses have been carved out in
RSA-1684-2019 (O&M) - 15 -
the area and further admitted that situation existing at the
spot does not tally with the revenue record produced by him.
16. Thus, from the evidence on file, it is sufficiently
proved on record that partition took place between co-
sharers who had carved out Mandi wherein shops and houses
have been constructed and after partition, the property was
identifiable by their specific numbers given as reflected in site
plan (Ex.C33). The entries in the revenue record are against
the actual and factual position existing at the spot and
obviously, these entries in the revenue record have got little
significance in the light of judgment dated 24.10.1951 and
site plan (Ex.P33). In case titled as Dropdi vs. Kanhiya and
Ors 2007 (1) Civil Court Cases 73 (P&H), it has been held that
the Jamabandi entries are relevant only when an area, to
which they pertain, is under cultivation and not when a
residential house is constructed thereon. The appellant is not
shown to have got any concern with the suit property of the
respondent no.1 and 2 as respondent no.1 and 2 are owners
of the same having purchased the same through registered
sale deeds."
15. Thus, from the above concurrent findings, it is clear that the
plaintiffs were able to prove the sale deeds executed in their favour; that
as per the evidence of the defence witnesses, the revenue record did not
tally with the position on inasmuch as the revenue record did not reflect
the construction of shops and still incorrectly bore the old khasra
Numbers which were no longer in existence. The learned counsel for the
appellant is unable to dispute or controvert the above said concurrent
findings.
RSA-1684-2019 (O&M) - 16 -
16. Even otherwise, present Second appeal is liable to be
dismissed on the short ground that this Court in Regular Second Appeal
has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts
returned by the learned Courts below. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
M/s. Shivali Enterprises v. Godawari (Deceased) (SC): Law Finder Doc Id
# 2034559 has held that no matter howsoever incorrect or grossly
erroneous the concurrent findings of the learned courts below may be,
this Court in the Second Appeal can interfere in the concurrent findings
only where there is an error in law or procedure. In the present case, no
such error in law and procedure has been made out by learned counsel
for the appellants.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to controvert or
dispute the above said facts and findings.
18. Keeping in view the undisputed position in law, I find no
ground is made out to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees
of the learned Courts below. The present Regular Second Appeal is hereby
dismissed.
19. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
06.11.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
