High Court of Punjab And Ha D Haryana
Case Details
Page 1 of 4 4 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 115 Bohar Singh RSA-5132-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.01.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) Union of India ndia & Others Vs. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advoc Mr. Parit Aggarwal, Advoca for the appellant. dvocate with vocate NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** CM-14517-C- -2019 This is an application u for n under Section 151 CPC for condonation o on of delay of 109 days in re-filing th ng the appeal. After going through the on, the contents of the application, which is supp supported by affidavit, the same ust me is allowed subject to all just exceptions and s and delay of 109 days in re-filing th g the appeal is condoned. MAIN CASE
Legal Reasoning
The plaintiff is in second ap nst d appeal before this Court against the concurren rrent findings of the learned Courts he urts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff for or permanent injunction restrainin nt aining the respondent/defendant from interferi rfering in possession of the plainti as aintiff over the suit property, has been dismisse issed by both the Courts below i. ee w i.e. vide judgment and decree dated 03.11.2 11.2016 passed by the learned ior ed Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Moga oga passed in Civil Suit No.RT-17 uly 17 of 29.01.2013; which was duly SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) affirmed by th y the learned Additional District Ju Page 2 of 4 4 (cid:1) nd t Judge, Moga vide judgment and decree dated ted 26.11.2018 in Civil Appeal No.17 178 dated 07.12.2016. 2. The parties shall hereinaft eir inafter be referred to as per their status before t ore the learned trial Court. 3. The case as set out by the the appellant/plaintiff in his suit was that the the Suit property was purchased sed by Sukhchain Singh son of Chand Singh gh in an open auction conducte cted by Government and sale certificate wa was also issued by the defenda endant No.1/Union of India to Sukhchain Sing Singh; and at the time of purchase ase, Sukhchain Singh was put in possession by n by defendant No.1 in the proper perty in dispute as owner; and said Sukhchai chain Singh started residing in pr n property in dispute and the property is ass s assessed to house tax and the nam name of Sukhchain Singh is duly appearing in t in the house tax record. It was fur s further averred that Sukhchain Singh leased o ed out the property in dispute vide ide lease deed dated 25.10.2012 and put the pl e plaintiff in possession as lessee u ee under Sukhchain Singh. It was alleged that at the Defendants want to take take forcible possession of the property in d in dispute for which they have go e got no right. Accordingly, the plaintiff/appel ppellant filed the present, suit for p for permanent injunction on the ground that th at the plaintiff derives title to the s he suit property from Sukhchain Singh vide lea lease deed dated 25.10.2012 (Ex. (Ex. P-1) who in turn purchased the suit prop property from Govt. of India in in an open auction vide sale certificate dat dated 3.9.1980 (Ex. P-5). Both the the Courts below dismissed the SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 3 of 4 4 (cid:1) claim of the p he plaintiff on the ground that he t he was not able to prove his possession. 4. During the pendency o y of the above ne litigation, one Darshan Singh Singh filed a petition for ejectme as ctment against PSEB which was allowed vide o ide order dated 18.11.2009. The exe er execution of the above said order was filed on on 14.6.2010. The plaintiff along led long with Sukhchain Singh filed objections qua qua the same claiming that the pr nt e property in dispute/the present suit property rty was allotted to them by the G 80. e Government in the year 1980. However, the the objections of the appellant/pla th t/plaintiff were dismissed by both the Court belo below on the ground that the obje ve objectors were not able to prove their possessio ession or the existence of any conv ny conveyance deed or examine any official to pro prove the authenticity of the al he e allotment letter (Ex. P-5). The plaintiff alon long with Sukhchain Singh preferre re ferred ESA No. 10 of 2023 before this Hon'ble Co le Court which was also dismissed v ed vide order dated 5.4.2024. 5. In view of the above un nt e undisputed facts, the present appeal is liabl liable to be dismissed. Even otherw gs, herwise, vide concurrent findings, both the Cour ourts below have held that the pl to e plaintiff had miserably failed to prove his pos possession over the suit land up ve upon which he claims to have derived title a tle as lessee from Sukhchain Singh uit ingh who had purchased the suit land through o gh open auction from the Governm ara rnment. The ld. Trial court in para 11 of its judgm dgment dated 3.11.2016 has given ven the following finding: – “….Perusal of the entire pleading dings of the parties shows that the plaintiff has failed to stand o nd on his own legs to prove his case as the plaintiff has failed to d to prove the fact that he is in SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 4 of 4 4 (cid:1) possession of the same land whic which he alleges that Sukhchain Singh has purchased through a gh an open auction from the Government as the lease deed da ed dated 25.10.2012 shows that it is of the land whose file No. No. of the conveyance deed is 15/3/s(?) however the document ent i.e. the conveyance deed i.e. Ex-P5 so produced by the plainti laintiff allegedly in the name of Sukchain Singh mentions file No e No. 15/V/s and both the file numbers on the lease deed i.e Ex e Ex-P1 and conveyance Deed i.e. Ex-P5 does not tally with each oth h other to prove the fact that the plaintiff has taken the same lan e land on lease from Sukhchain Singh which he has allegedly pu y purchased in an open auction from the Government and furthe fro rther perusal of Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW9/A shows that the same ame pertains to 15/3/s and not 15/V/s….” 6. Learned Senior Counsel fo el for the appellant is unable to controvert or d t or deny the above said facts. 7. 8.
Decision
In view of the above, prese resent appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. 23.01.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether spea Whether repo peaking/reasoned: eportable: Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)