JAB AND H D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Fazal Din (thro (through LR) gh Uttam v. M) RSA No
Case Details
RSA No. 2179 179 of 1994 IN THE H HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Fazal Din (thro (through LR) gh Uttam Singh Versus M) RSA No. 2179 of 1994 (O&M) 25 Reserved on: 25.08.2025 25 Pronounced on: 28.08.2025 nt …Appellant nt …Respondent CORAM: HON’ ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPT UPTA Argued by:-Mr Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for the respondent. *** DEEPAK GUPT UPTA, J. CM No. 4689 689-C of 2025 This application has been moved am ved by Bahadur Singh and Hakam Singh under O er Order XXII Rule 10 CPC read wit ad with Section 151 CPC to implead them as res respondents in the case. It is su at is submitted by Ld. counsel that respondent -
Legal Reasoning
- defendant Uttam Singh had tra in transferred the suit property in favour of one one Surjeet Singh by virtue of tra 89 transfer deed dated 23.01.1989 (Annexure A A-1) as registered in the office tla. fice of Sub Registrar Malerkotla. Thereafter, Su Surjeet Singh transferred/ exc in exchanged the said property in favour of the a the applicants vide exchange deed d in ed dated 28.11.2016 registered in the office of S of Sub Registrar, Malerkotla vide V 2). Vasika No. 2168 (Annexure A-2). This way, all th all the rights and interest in the suit in suit property have been vested in the applicant cants and as such, they are en as e entitled to be impleaded as respondents in ts in the appeal. 2. No reply to the aforesaid applica by plication has been filed either by the appellant llant i.e. respondent of the pre he present application, or by the respondent o t of the appeal. The application of ion is supported by the copy of JITEN SHARMA 2025.08.28 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 1 of 5 Page ages RSA No. 2179 179 of 1994 transfer dead ead as executed by Uttam Singh in nd h in favour of Surjeet Singh and then exchange ange-deed executed by Surjeet Sing Singh in favour of the applicants. 3. In view of the above said docum he ocuments and no contest on the part of the op e opposite party, the application i re on is allowed. The applicants are permitted to to be to be replaced as responde ed ondents of the appeal. Amended memo of parti parties is taken on record.
Decision
f. Application stands disposed of. RSA No. 2179 o 179 of 1994 4. Plaintiff of the case is before thi lar e this court in the present regular second appea ppeal. The suit filed by him seek nt seeking a decree of permanent injunction reg regarding the property in dispute w urt ute was decreed by the trial court on 22.03.1990 1990. However, the appeal filed b gh d by the defendant Uttam Singh was partly acc accepted vide judgment dated 05 ff’s 05.04.1994 by holding plaintiff’s possession on n on four biswas of land out of eigh at eight biswas, but it was held that he could be be dispossessed only in due cou aid course of law. Against the said judgment date dated 05.04.1994, plaintiff has appr approached this Court. 5. Learned counsel for both the par eat parties have been heard at great length and the the paper book perused with their heir able assistance. 6. As per the case pleaded by the pl gh e plaintiff (now appellant through his LRs) he is o e is owner in possession of suit land rds land measuring 207-2/3 sq. yards shown in the s the site plan annexed with the plain ion laint, on which he is in possession for the last 30 t 30 years and on which he has inst ne, installed fodder cutting machine, manger, engi engine etc. Denying any concern o nd rn of the defendant with suit and alleging interf terference on his part, plaintiff pray nt prayed for a decree of permanent injunction to r to restrain the defendant from doin doing so. 7. As per the stand taken by the in the defendant, he is owner in possession of n of the suit property with whic rn. which plaintiff has no concern. Defendant fur t further disputed the correctness he ess of the site plan relied by the plaintiff. As pe s per defendant, in fact the dispute as uted land measuring eight biswas is comprised i ed in khata/ Khatauni No. 97/189, k ed 89, khasra No. 816/1(0-8) situated in village Saud Saudapur, Tehsil Malerkotla as per 87, per jamabandi for the year 1987, JITEN SHARMA 2025.08.28 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 2 of 5 Page ages RSA No. 2179 179 of 1994 out of which h ich he constructed kacha house ove old over 1-1/4 biswa,which was sold by him to Ro o Roshan Singh about two mont ed onths ago and who had raised construction o on of his house. Remaining 6-3/4 as 3/4 biswas is in his possession as owner. Defen efendant further pleaded that wa of t wall in between the house of plaintiff and th nd the house in dispute had fallen d on. len down during the rainy season. He requested ted the plaintiff several times to con ot o construct the wall but he did not do so and rath rather filed the present suit to gra he grab the suit property under the garb of prese resent suit without having any rig nd y right to do so. With this stand defendant pra t prayed for dismissal of the suit. 8. Necessary issues were framed. he ed. Evidence produced by the parties was ta s taken on record. The trial Court, ce urt, based upon the oral evidence produced by by the plaintiff, held the plaintiff of tiff to be owner in possession of the suit prope operty and as such, decreed the sui suit. 9. However, the Appellate Cour he Court found that as per the demarcation c ion conducted by the Local Commiss rt, missioner appointed by the Court, suit property rty comprised in khasra number 81 ich er 816 measuring 8 biswas, which was owned by d by the defendant as per jamaband 5) bandi for the year 1981-82 (Ex.D5) and khasra Gir a Girdawari (Ex.D6) and it was recor ot. ecorded to be a gair mumkin plot. It was furthe rther found from the report of t at of the Local Commissioner that plaintiff was as in unauthorized possession of nd of four biswas of the suit land without havin aving any right to do so. As such, th ed h, the appeal was partly accepted to the effect fect that possession of the respon ur spondent-plaintiff was over four biswas of land land, which was illegal and unaut be authorized and that he could be dispossessed f sed from the same only in due cou . It course of law and not forcibly. It was specifica cally held that as far as owner he nership is concerned, it is the defendant wh t who was the owner thereof and th to nd that he can seek his remedy to evict the plain laintiff in due course of law. 10. Assailing the aforesaid finding of t is g of the First Appellate Court, it is contended by by learned counsel for the app ate appellant-plaintiff that Appellate Court has wro wrongly held the defendant to be ply be owner of the suit land simply on the basis o sis of entry in the jamabandi. The co l is e contention of learned counsel is JITEN SHARMA 2025.08.28 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 3 of 5 Page ages RSA No. 2179 179 of 1994 that entries in es in Jamabandies are recorded o nd d only for the fiscal purposes and cannot be co considered to be proof of title. for itle. Learned counsel prayed for restoring the the judgment of the trial Court he urt by setting aside that of the Appellate Cou Court. 11. On the other hand, learned c - ed counsel for the respondent- defendant sub t submitted that entries in Jamaba of abandies contain presumption of truthfulness u ss unless the same are rebutted a se, ed and that in the present case, plaintiff failed ailed to rebut the presumption of he n of ownership in favour of the defendant. 12. After considering submissions o es, ns of counsel for both the sides, this Court find finds that there is no merit in the p en he present appeal. It has not been disputed befo efore the Court that as per the dem rty demarcation of the suit property conducted by by the local Commissioner appoin nd ointed by the Court, it was found that suit prop property is comprised in khasra n he ra number 816/1 and as per the revenue recor ecord i.e. entries in jamabandi (E is i (Ex.D5), said khasra number is owned by the the defendant-respondent. There is est re is nothing on record to suggest that any objec bjection was filed against the report port of the local Commissioner. 13. No doubt the entries in the jam he jamabandi are recorded for the fiscal purpose poses, but at the same time, Sec nd Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act c Act clearly provides that the said e of id entry carries a presumption of truthfulness u ss unless the same is rebutted. 14. In the p he present case, except for the or he e oral evidence produced by the plaintiff so as o as to assert his ownership over th er er the suit land, there is no other evidence to r to rebut the presumption. The Ap eld Appellate Court has rightly held that in view o ew of the entries in the jamaband ny andi, and in the absence of any cogent eviden idence, simply the oral evidence be ence of the plaintiff cannot be believed so a so as to rebut the presumption. A urt n. As such, the Appellate Court rightly held th d the defendant-respondent to be o be owner of the suit property. 15. Since possession of the plaintiff ut tiff-appellant over four biswas out of the suit land land has been found, so Appellate C he ate Court has rightly held that the JITEN SHARMA 2025.08.28 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 4 of 5 Page ages RSA No. 2179 179 of 1994 said possessio ssion is illegal and unauthorized b by d but he can be dispossessed by the defendant dant only in due course of law. 16. This Court does not find any illeg re illegality or perversity in the afore said findings a gs as recorded by the First Appella on pellate Court, which are based on proper apprec preciation of evidence on record. to rd. As such, there is no reason to interfere in t in the same. Consequently, holdin be olding the present appeal to be devoid of any any merit, same is hereby dismissed ssed. 28.08.2025 Jiten (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : : Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No JITEN SHARMA 2025.08.28 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 5 of 5 Page ages