14.0 990(O&M) .05.2025 14.05.2025 v. m Mange Ram der Ram Chander nt
Case Details
RSA No. 603 o 03 of 1990 IN THE H HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 603 of 1990 Reserved on: 12.05. Pronounced on: 14.0 990(O&M) .05.2025 14.05.2025 Versus m Mange Ram der Ram Chander nt …Appellant nt …Respondent CORAM: HON ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPT UPTA Argued by:- M and Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate and dvocate Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, Advo for the appellant. Mr. Manuj Chadha, Advocate For the respondent. *** DEEPAK GUPT UPTA, J. This is defendant’s second he d regular appeal against the concurrent fin t findings of the Courts below ina ion inasmuch as suit for possession regarding the the property in dispute filed by ow by plaintiff Ram Chander (now respondent thr t through his LRs) was decreed by 89. by the trial Court on 12.01.1989. The appeal fil l filed by the defendant Mange Ra his e Ram (now appellant through his LRs) was dism ismissed by the First Appellate Cour Court on 02.02.1990. 2. In order to avoid confusion, pa er , parties shall be referred as per their status be s before the trial Court. 3.1 According to plaintiff Ram Chand rd hander, he is the owner/ landlord of the house i se in dispute, detailed in plaint, sit aid t, situated in village Kalawati. Said house is in pos
Legal Reasoning
possession of defendant as tenant er ant since 28.04.1957 @ Rs.2/- per month. After t ter the death of Neki Ram, the fath tiff father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had settled a d at village Kalwa and so, he h to e had rented out the same to defendant. Ba t. Bahi entry to that effect was exe tiff executed by defendant. Plaintiff required the the house for his personal use. he se. It was also alleged that the defendant had t had not paid the rent w.e.f. 01.0 de 01.01.1981. Defendant also made JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.15 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 1 of 7 Page ages RSA No. 603 o 03 of 1990 material altera lterations in the house in dispute by or te by making kacha room and khor etc.. Legal not notice under Section 106 of the Tra lso Transfer of Property Act was also given to the d he defendant through the counse ut nsel terminating his tenancy but defendant fail t failed to vacate the suit property. H ty. Hence the suit. 3.2 Defendant in his written statem He atement denied the tenancy. He even denied t ed the plaintiff to be owner of the ied f the house in dispute. He denied having execu ecuted any Bahi entry and alleg ed alleged the same to be forged document. He . He denied having ever paid any r lea ny rent. He further took the plea that even if it if it is found that at any point of tim he f time, plaintiff was owner of the house, but no t now he (defendant) being in ad ast adverse possession for the last more than 12 12 years, has become owner there ot hereof and as such, plaintiff is not entitled to su o sue for possession. With this for his stand, defendant prayed for dismissal of th of the suit. 3.3 3.4 In rejoinder, plaintiff reiterated h ed his claim. Necessary issues were framed. he ed. Evidence produced by the parties was ta s taken on record. 4. Trial Court decreed the suit for lief for possession, though the relief sought for rec recovery of arrears of rent and cos he costs of notice was declined. The appeal filed b d by the defendant Mange Ramw ny mwas found to be devoid of any merit by the F he First Appellate Court and so, uph rial upholding the findings of the trial Court, the sam same was dismissed. 5. Assailing the aforesaid concurren by rrent findings, it is contended by Ld. counsel fo el for appellant-defendant that pl ot t plaintiff Ram Chander had not entered into t to the witness box and therefore, of , the statement of his power of attorney could could not be taken into considerat ies eration. Besides the Bahi entries Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 x.P3 relied by the plaintiff were no ahi e not proved on record. The Bahi entries Ex.P1 t .P1 to Ex.P3 otherwise also could no ion ld not be taken into consideration being unregist egistered documents. It is further c led er contended that plaintiff failed to produce on e on record any document relating t ty. ing to his title to the suit property. Learned coun ounsel contends that the evidenc at ence on record established that JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.15 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 2 of 7 Page ages RSA No. 603 o 03 of 1990 defendant-app appellant had become owner of of r of the suit property by way of adverse posse ossession. With these submissions for ions, learned counsel prayed for setting aside t ide the judgments passed by the Co he e Courts below and to dismiss the suit of the plai plaintiff-respondent. 6. Refuting the aforesaid content ed tentions, it is urged by learned counsel for re r respondent-plaintiff that there is in re is no scope for interference in the concurren rrent findings of facts as record ich corded by Courts below, which established be d beyond doubt that it is the plain he plaintiff, who is the owner of the property in in dispute. Learned counsel con at contends that mere fact that defendant rai t raised the plea of having becom rse come owner by way of adverse possession, d n, demolishes his stand of denial iff. nial of the title of the plaintiff. Defendant fai t failed to prove that he had beco rse ecome owner by way of adverse possession, h n, having failed to establish th the necessary to ingredients to constitute adv adverse possession. With all these de hese submissions, prayer is made for dismissal o sal of the appeal. 7. This Court has considered subm nd ubmissions of both the sides and have appraise aised the record carefully. 8. Before commenting on the rival sel ival contentions raised by counsel for both the the sides, it will be appropriate to ns e to reproduce the observations made by the the First Appellate Court, while d he ile dismissing the appeal of the defendant. Th t. These read as under:- “9. Keeping into consideration the afo by aforesaid arguments addressed by the learn learned counsel for the parties, I have nd ave gone through the pleadings and evidence ence adduced by the parties in the lig e. I e light the case law referred above. I find mys myself unable to agree with the con sel contentions of the learned counsel for the a he appellant - defendant Mange Ram te Ram. I fully concur with the ultimate findings ings given by the learned trial court th as rt that the plaintiff Ram Chander has been suc n successful in proving his ownership o ow hip of the house in dispute. It is now an admi dmitted fact that the house in dispute ge pute is situate in the centre of village Kalawati wati. Copy Ex.P5 of the jamabandi, nd di, evidence of Gomand, Telu and Dariya h ya have proved that plaintiff Ram Cha re Chander and his predecessors were JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.15 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 3 of 7 Page ages RSA No. 603 o 03 of 1990 the prop proprietors of village Kalawati. It is at It is further an admitted fact that defenda ndant Mange Ram and his father Ne nd r Neki Ram are non-proprietors and Neki Ram i Ram had migrated from village Bidha ati. idhan and settled at village Kalawati. The hou house in dispute is certainly situate in ati. te in the LalDora of village Kalawati. It is a ca a case of common knowledge that on do t only the proprietors of a village do have the their residences in the vicinity of La at LalDora. It is understandable that there co e could be no documentary evidence he nce i.e., revenue record to prove the ownersh ership of the house in dispute situate be uate within the LalDora. It would be pertinen inent to mention here that defend - fendant Mange Ram in his cross- examina ination admitted that there was no er s no other house of Ram Chander except t pt the house in dispute in village Ka M Kalawati (YOH THEEK HAI KE RAM CHANDE NDER KAY PASS ES MAKAN KAY ELEVA NA EVA GAON MEIN OR KOI MAKAN NA HAI”). ). Defendant Mange Ram in his evid ad evidence stated that his father had occupied pied the open site about 60-70 years he ears back and then constructed the house in se in dispute thereon. This evidenc nd ence of the defendant is beyond pleading dings. Nowhere in his written statem lso tement he has so averred. It is also an admi dmitted fact that defendant Mange in nge Ram has no agricultural land in village K ge Kalawati. It is manifest from the he the copy Ex.PX and Ex.PY of the judgmen ment and decree, respectively, dated ge ted 19.11.1985 that this very Mange Ram had had filed a suit for permanent injun tiff injunction against this very plaintiff Ram Cha Chander and four others seeking a d ion g a decree for permanent injunction to the e he effect that Ram Chander and ot ing others be restrained from taking forcible ible possession of the house in disp ely dispute in his possession. Strangely enough, ugh, defendant Mange Ram in his ev ver s evidence denied that he had ever filed sui suit for injunction against the plaint he laintiff. He stands falsified from the copies E es Exs. PX and PY of the judgment 85. ent and decree dated 19.11.1985. Evidence ence of defendant’s witness Ishwar h he ar has been rightly discarded by the learned ned trial court for the reason that he w e he was not able to tell correctly the boundar ndaries of the house in dispute. He ( ot He (Ishwar), aged 55 years, was not able to to tell the origin of ownership of th he f the house in dispute. Though the plaintiff tiff has not stepped into the witnes ey itness box, but his special attorney Gomand and and his witnesses Telu and Daria se ria have fully supported his cause and claim claim. They all have given history of th are of the house in dispute and there are no reaso easons to disbelieve or discard their ich heir evidence. Another factor which goes in in favour of the plaintiff Ram Chand as ander is that defendant Mange has JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.15 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 4 of 7 Page ages RSA No. 603 o 03 of 1990 not bee been able to prove his plea of adver in verse possession over the house in dispute. ute. All the ingredients of the plea of er of adverse possession have neither been av n averred in the written statement, ot ent, nor duly proved. He has not specified ified in his written statement and in ate n his evidence as to on what date and aga against whom his adverse possessio of ession had begun. The question of burden en of proving at the end of the ca ad e case where both the parties had adduced uced their evidence is not of very grea to great importance and the court is to come to e to a conclusion on consideration of by n of material. Evidence adduced by the part parties in this case, as discussed a ble ed above, leads to this irresistible conclusi lusion that the plaintiff Ram Chande in ander is the owner of the house in dispute ute and defendant Mange Ram is i he is in authorized possession of the same. It e. It appears from the evidence and co lly d conduct of the parties that initially plaintiff’ tiff’s father had simply permitted def se defendant’s father to use the house in disput ispute and later on defendant started . It rted claiming the same as his own. It is furthe rther manifest from the material on r en on record that it happened so when plaintiff’ tiff’s father had left village Kalawati a ati and settled in some other village. 10. I do not agree with the lea - learned counsel for the appellant- defenda ndant Mange that writings Exs. P on. s. P1 to P3 required registration. Content tents of Exs. P1 to P3 do not sugges as gest that the house in dispute was leased o ed out for a period beyond one year o ed. ear or that yearly rent was reserved. These do se documents do not purport to have nd ave been executed by the lesser and the lesse lessee both. But, at the same time, I f at e, I feel no hesitation in holding that evidence ence on record does not prove these re hese documents as genuine. A bare perusal sal of these writings on one bahi lea ne i leaf shows that they are with one and the the same ink and pen. That was the re ho he reason that Balak Ram PW-1 who stated t ed to have scribed these writings adm re admitted that these writings were made on e on one and the same day. Further h he her he stated that he was not in the know of w of owner of the house, though own ed owner of the house has been stated in these ese writings. Name of the scribe is n gs, is not mentioned in these writings, nor sign signed by him. Date given in Ex.P-1 to 1 is 24.8.1957. Ex.P3 purports to have com come in existence in the year 1954 a se 54 and Ex.P2 in the year 1958. These writings ings Exs. P1 to P3 were thumb marke by arked by Mange Ram, as alleged by the plain plaintiff. It would be pertinent to men ge mention here that defendant Mange in his st is statement made on 23.7.1987 state ied stated that his father Neki had died JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.15 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 5 of 7 Page ages RSA No. 603 o 03 of 1990 about 2 ut 25-30 years ago. Plaintiff’s specia at ecial attorney Gomand stated that defenda ndant’s father died about 15-20 y at 0 years ago, becomes clear that defenda ndant Mange Ram’s father Neki Ram 55 am was alive in the year 1954, 1955 and 195 1957. It is also not disputed that defe lso defendant Mange Ram’s father also used to to live in the house in dispute. If nd e. If that was so then proper and appropr ropriate person for taking the house in ff’s se in dispute on rent from plaintiff’s father w er was defendant’s father Neki. Evi nd Evidence of the Hand-writing and Finger P
Legal Reasoning
er Print Expert, Shri J.C. Singla inspire on spires no confidence, for the reason that he he had no exact knowledge of the te is e term “Island”, reading of which is necessar ssary for comparison of disputed thum ed thumb impression with the admitted thumb im b impression. Thumb impression on ot on Exs. P1 to P3 are apparently not clear. Co r. Copy Ex.PX of the judgment dated 1 ery ed 19.11.1985 reveals that this very plaintiff tiff Ram Chander, who was defendan en dant in the previous suit, had taken plea tha that the house in dispute was given to ate en to Mange Ram on rent at the rate of Rs.10 s.10/- per month, on monthly basis. It of is. It may be recalled that the rate of monthly thly rent given in Ex.P1 is Rs.2/- an se and rupee 1/- in Ex.P3. For these reasons, ons, I hold that the writing Exs. P1 or P1 to P3 are neither genuine, nor helped t ed the plaintiff.” 9. The above findings, based on pro ce, proper appreciation of evidence, clearly establi tablish that the suit property lies w he es within the Lal Dora area of the village. It has has been determined that the pla his plaintiff, Ram Chander, and his predecessors ors were proprietors of village Kal is Kalawati, where the property is located, while hile the defendant, Mange Ram, an ho , and his father, Neki Ram—who had migrated ated from village Bidhan—were irst ere non-proprietors. The First Appellate Cou Court rightly noted the general un ge al understanding that only village proprietors m rs maintain residences near the Lal D Lal Dora. 10. Since properties within the Lal D ed Lal Dora are often undocumented in revenue rec records, formal proof of title is gen er, s generally unavailable. Moreover, the defendan dant’s own admission weakens hi ed s his claim, as he acknowledged that apart from from the disputed house, the plain rty plaintiff owned no other property in the village ge—indicating the suit property ind iff. y indeed belonged to the plaintiff. The defendan dant’s statement that his father o 70 er occupied the open site 60–70 JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.15 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 6 of 7 Page ages RSA No. 603 o 03 of 1990 years ago and and constructed the house was disc he discredited, as it went beyond the scope of his w is written statement. 11. It was also revealed that the d l e defendant held no agricultural land in village lage Kalawati. Additionally, he had r- had previously filed a suit for per- manent injunc junction against the plaintiff and o nt nd others, as shown in judgment and decree E e Ex.PX and Ex.PY—despite deny — denying this during testimony— further underm dermining his credibility. 12. The First Appellate Court corre he orrectly held that, although the plaintiff did n id not personally testify, his attorn s- torney adequately proved the es- sential facts to ts to establish his ownership. No q p- o question was raised by the ap- pellant's coun ounsel that could not have been t- n effectively answered by the at- torney or that that required the personal testimon mony of the plaintiff. 13. In the aforesaid facts and circum ot ircumstances, this Court does not find any grou ground whatsoever to disturb th nt b the well-reasoned concurrent findings of fac f facts as recorded by Courts below ed low, which are found to be based upon proper per appreciation of evidence. In th or n the absence of any illegality or perversity in t in the findings, the present appea ny ppeal is held to be devoid of any merit and as s as such, the same is hereby dismiss issed. 14.05.2025 Jiten (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : Yes/No : Yes/No JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.15 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 7 of 7 Page ages