Jagdish Singh and another v. Waryam Singh and others
Case Details
RSA-1402-2019 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 121 RSA-1402-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.07.2025 Jagdish Singh and another ...Appellant(s) Vs. Waryam Singh and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Kartikeya Swaroop, Advocate for the appellants. NIDHI GUPTA, J. The plaintiffs are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration, to the effect that suit land measuring 21 Kanals 3 Marlas as described in the head note of the plaint is Shamlat Deh and belongs to the residents of the village and any sale deeds executed in favour of the defendants by any person in regard to the suit property, are illegal, void, in-effective, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. 2. At the very outset, it may be pointed out that although the present appeal is of the year 2019, notice has not yet been issued. In fact, appeal has been dismissed once for non-prosecution on 28.09.2022 due to non-appearance on behalf of the appellants. However, the same was restored thereafter on 24.07.2023. DIVYANSHI 2025.07.11 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1402-2019 (O&M) - 2 - 3.
Facts
The pleaded case of the plaintiffs was that the suit land was donated by worshippers of the village including forefathers of the plaintiffs to the Gram Panchayat of the village. Thus, suit land was Shamlat Deh. Even in revenue record, suit land was shown as Shamlat Deh. As such nobody had right to sell the suit property as the same is to be used for the welfare and common purpose of villagers. As such, sale deeds executed in favour of the defendants were illegal, null and void. With these assertions, the appellant had filed the suit on 24.1.2008, seeking a decree of declaration to the effect that the suit land is 'Shamlat Deh' belonging to “residents of village and sale deeds, executed in favour of the defendants by any persons with regard to the suit property are illegal, void in-effective and by way of impersonation of the plaintiffs or any other competent person thus are not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs being owners in possession thus are liable to be set aside in the alternative suit for possession of the same.” 4. The suit was resisted by the defendants by submitÝng that the suit land was not Shamlat Deh. It was further submitted that if assertion of the plaintiffs is accepted in regard to nature of the land, then jurisdiction of civil court is barred. As such, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial court on 19.09.2011: - 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD. DIVYANSHI 2025.07.11 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1402-2019 (O&M) - 3 - 3. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit?OPD. 4. Whether his court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? OPD. 5. Whether suit is not within limitation?OPD. 6. Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties?OPD. 7. Relief. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, and evidence produced by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mukerian, had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 27.01.2014. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide judgment and decree dated 09.01.2019. Hence, present second appeal by the plaintiffs. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiffs that forefathers of the plaintiffs and other worshippers of the village had donated suit land whereafter suit land became Shamlat Deh to be used for the villagers. Even in the revenue record, suit land is recorded as Shamlat Deh. However, to the utter surprise of the plaintiffs, it came to their knowledge that defendants were claiming themselves to be owners of the suit property on the basis of some Sale Deed. It came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs that by using the impersonator as Lal Chand Veragi, who was forefather of the plaintiffs, Sale Deed was got executed in the favour of the defendants. Ld. counsel submits that the plaintiffs had adduced sufÏcient documentary evidence including Jamabandi for the year 1908 and 1909 Ex.PX2 and its translation in Punjabi Ex.PX3 from which it was DIVYANSHI 2025.07.11 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1402-2019 (O&M) - 4 - evident that suit land was Shamlat Deh. It is submitted that accordingly suit land being Shamlat Deh, Sale Deed could not have been executed in favour of the defendants. However, the additional evidence adduced by the plaintiffs including Ex.PX2 and Ex.PX3 have not been considered by the ld. lower appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment and decree. Even the testimonies of PW5 Tirath Singh, and PW6 Vishal Kumar, residents of the village have been ignored by the Courts below. Even PW4 had deposed that suit property is Shamlat. Even the Gram Panchayat- defendant No.13 in its written statement filed before the learned trial Court had admitted the suit property to be Shamlat Deh. Ld. Counsel contends that despite clear pleadings to this effect, even no issue was framed by the learned trial court in this regard. Moreover, no finding has been returned either by trial Court or First appellate Court as to whether suit land is Shamlat Deh or not. 8. At this stage, on a Court query as to whether any objection was raised by the plaintiffs regarding improper framing of issues, it is
Legal Reasoning
nowhere mentioned any Khasra No. It is well settled that presumption of truth is attached with Jamabandi. However, nowhere in the Jamabandi or in the plaint, Khasra No. is mentioned. Thus, plaintiffs are themselves not clear regarding their own relief of declaration as they have not pleaded any Khasra Number. Thus, plaintiffs again failed to prove their ownership or any connection with the suit land. 15. Moreover, even as per the Jamabandi for the year 1929-1930 Ex.PI produced by the plaintiffs, they are not reflected in the column of ownership or in column of possession. Jamabandi Ex.P1 shows name of Bishan Das Waryani Singh etc. over suit land; and Jamabandi Ex.P2 shows possession of Kanshi Ram over suit land. Therefore, plaintiffs were even unable to establish that they were owners in possession of the suit DIVYANSHI 2025.07.11 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1402-2019 (O&M) - 7 - property at any point of time, as claimed by them. On the other hand, Ex.PA is the registered Sale Deed in favour of defendants. The defendants have produced copies of registered sale deeds to show that they have purchased suit land. Defendants have put on record Jamabandi Ex.D1 to show their possession as owners. To same effect is Jamabandi Ex.D2 to Ex.D4. Thus, the learned courts below, after appraising the evidence led by both sides, recorded a finding that the 'Jamabandi' Ex. P-1, showed that neither the plaintiffs themselves, nor any religious institution, was reflected to be the owner of the suit land, with the possession of the plaintiffs also not shown. 16. Furthermore, by way of the present suit, plaintiffs have challenged Sale Deeds dated 02.05.1961 and 06.04.1962 executed in favour of the defendants. Admittedly, plaintiffs were unable to prove that the said Sale Deeds are forged and fabricated documents. In this regard, the cross examination of first appellant-plaintiff Jagdish Singh, is relevant wherein he has admitted that the defendants are the owners of the suit land, though he subsequently changed his stand and stated that he did not know as to whether defendants no. 1 and 2 had purchased it from Lal Chand etc., vide sale deeds dated 02.05.1961 and 06.04.1962. Similarly, the cross-examination of PW-2 Harbans Singh is also relevant as he has admitted that he did not know whether one Bhagwan Singh had purchased the suit land in the year 1962 from Lal Chand etc., and as to what crop was grown on it. It is further established from the ofÏcial record that the possession of the suit land was given to Kanshi Ram s/o Braham DIVYANSHI 2025.07.11 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1402-2019 (O&M) - 8 - Dass, as a 'Malguzar'; and that possession was subsequently converted into an allotment of the land to him in the year 1958-59, with his successors thereafter having sold the land to the defendants, vide the impugned sale deeds. 17. Besides the above, it is also to be considered that present suit challenging the sale deeds dated 2.5.1961 and 6.4.1962 was filed 45 years later, on 24.01.2008. As such, suit is also beyond period of limitation. It is further established on record that plaintiffs had knowledge about the registry of the Sale Deeds in the year 1962-1963 itself. Therefore, suit of the plaintiffs was hopelessly barred by limitation. 18. Furthermore, even if the plea of the plaintiffs that the suit land is Shamlat in nature is accepted, then jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred as Civil Court has no jurisdiction to correct revenue record. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ram Singh vs. Gram Panchayat, Mehal Kalan”, Law Finder Doc Id # 52492. Argument on behalf of the plaintiffs that as jurisdiction of civil court is barred and therefore suit of the appellants was not maintainable, and therefore, the learned Courts below ought to have returned the suit of the plaintiffs with liberty to pursue remedy as per law while setÝng aside the adverse findings of fact, is liable to be rejected on the short ground that it is the explicit prayer of the plaintiffs in the present Second Appeal that: “the judgment and decree dated 9-1-2019 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur and judgment and decree dated 9-1- 2019 passed by the court of Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mukerian DIVYANSHI 2025.07.11 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1402-2019 (O&M) - 9 - dated 27-1-2014 may kindly be set aside, in the interest of justice, and suit of the plaintiffs be decreed, with costs throughout.” Plaintiffs have clearly prayed that the suit be decreed with costs. 19. Thus, in view of the clear, categoric, and concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, I find no merit in the present Regular Second Appeal, and the same is hereby dismissed. 20.
Arguments
admitted by learned counsel for the appellants that no such objection was raised by the plaintiffs. On the contrary, learned counsel for the plaintiffs now submits before this Court, that Issue No.2 is a comprehensive issue which covers issue as to whether suit land is Shamlat Deh or not. 9. On a further Court query regarding locus of the appellants/plaintiffs to file the present suit, learned counsel submits that plaintiff is a member of proprietary body of the village and the suit land DIVYANSHI 2025.07.11 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1402-2019 (O&M) - 5 - was donated by ancestors of the appellants to the Gram Panchayat of the village and therefore, plaintiffs have interest in the suit land. 10. On the next query put by this Court, that if the suit land is Shamlat Deh then jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred, learned counsel for the plaintiffs admits this legal position to be correct. However, it is submitted that as jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred, then Civil Suit of the plaintiffs ought to have been returned, and appellants ought to have been granted permission for seeking remedy as per law. It is also submitted that appellants had to challenge Sale Deed also, therefore, Suit for declaration was filed. Further, suit land is Shamlat Deh, therefore, other findings of the learned trial Court and learned lower appellate Court cannot be sustained. It is accordingly prayed by learned counsel for the appellants that this appeal may kindly be accepted and the judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below, be set aside. 11. 12. No other argument is raised on behalf of the plaintiffs. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. 13. It has firstly been contended by learned counsel for the plaintiffs that suit land is Shamlat Deh. In support, learned counsel has relied upon Jamabandi for the year 1908-1909 in Urdu/Ex.PX2 and Punjabi translation thereof as Ex.PX3. However, a perusal of the said Jamabandi reveals that the same pertains to some other land and not to the suit land as described in the head note of the plaint. Despite repeated requests by DIVYANSHI 2025.07.11 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1402-2019 (O&M) - 6 - this Court, learned counsel for the appellants is unable to establish that suit land as described in the head note of the plaint is the same as mentioned in Jamabandi for the year 1908-1909/ Ex.PX2/ Ex.PX3/ and English translation of which is appended with the present appeal as Annexure P-8. As such, grievance of the appellants that the above said additional evidence adduced by the appellants was not considered by ld. lower appellate Court is liable to be rejected, in view of the fact that plaintiffs are unable to establish that the said evidence including Annexure P-8/ Ex.PX2/Ex.PX3/Jamabandi for the year 1908-1909 pertains to the suit land. As such, no prejudice has been caused to the appellants in this manner. 14. Furthermore, perusal of the plaint shows that plaintiffs have
Decision
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 09.07.2025 Divyanshi (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2025.07.11 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document