07.03.2025 Raj Singh Chhikara Rajender Singh and Others v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 117 RSA-729-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.03.2025 Raj Singh Chhikara Rajender Singh and Others Vs. …..Appellant .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ni(cid:14)n Nandal, Advocate for the appellant. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) **** Suit for permanent injunc(cid:14)on regarding property in dispute filed by plain(cid:14)ff Rajender Singh (contes(cid:8)ng respondent herein) was decreed by the trial Court on 29.11.2022. Appeal against the said judgment as filed by defendant No.1 (appellant herein) was dismissed by the first Appellate
Legal Reasoning
Court on 04.12.2024. Against this concurrent finding, the defendant No.1 of the case has approached this Court by way of present Regular Second Appeal. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Conten(cid:14)ons raised by learned counsel for the appellant have been heard and paper-book perused. 3.1 Admi.edly, plain(cid:14)ff had purchased a plot measuring 150 sq. yard out of gair mumkin land comprised in Khewat No.1430, Khasra No.3849/ 2077 situated within the Revenue Circle of Bahadargurh, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar from Ram Singh vide sale deed dated 15.09.1984, regarding which muta(cid:14)on No.11908 dated 29.10.2013 was sanc(cid:14)oned. It is also not in dispute that out of this land, he had given 20 sq. yard (3’6” X 50’) land to his brother - defendant No.1, which is depicted in the map by le.ers BEFC in red colour. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.10 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-729-2025 (O&M) -2- 3.2 According to the plain(cid:14)ff, he was leB with the remaining plot measuring 130 sq. Yard, on which he had raised boundary wall and installed a gate towards Southern side. It was alleged that houses of the defendants are surrounding the suit property and taking benefit thereof, defendants were threatening to encroach upon the same and take forcible possession of the suit property. To restrain the defendants from doing so, plain(cid:14)ff prayed for a decree of permanent injunc(cid:14)on. 3.3 Defendant No.1, who contested the suit did not dispute ini(cid:14)al ownership of the plain(cid:14)ff of the plot measuring 150 sq. Yard, out of which he had given 20 sq. yard of that plot to him (defendant No.1). It was claimed that in fact both of them had purchased respec(cid:14)ve plots of 150 sq. yard each in 1984. It was claimed that in November, 2005 a verbal se.lement took place between him and plain(cid:14)ff, as per which defendant shall be owner in possession of the en(cid:14)re plot of the plain(cid:14)ff measuring 150 sq. yard, which the said plain(cid:14)ff had purchased vide sale deed No.3678 dated 15.09.1984 and that plain(cid:14)ff shall transfer the same to him as and when asked to do so. In exchange, defendant had agreed to relinquish all his rights in two double storey residen(cid:14)al houses situated within the Lal Dora of Village Kanonda, Gher measuring 268 sq. yard and agricultural land measuring 3.25 Bigha belonging to him (defendant) situated in the revenue estate of Village Kanonda. Defendant pleaded that as per verbal se.lement, par(cid:14)es got possession of their respec(cid:14)ve proper(cid:14)es and this way, defendant was owner of the en(cid:14)re 300 sq. yard of land i.e. the two plots. He controverted the other averments of the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3.4 4. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 supported the stand of defendant No.1. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the par(cid:14)es was taken on record. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.10 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-729-2025 (O&M) -3- 29.11.2022 decreed the suit; and the said judgment has been affirmed by the first Appellate Court on 04.12.2024 as already no(cid:14)ced. 5. Assailing the aforesaid findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.1 that Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in right perspec(cid:14)ve. 6. Before commen(cid:14)ng on this conten(cid:14)on, it will be relevant to reproduce the observa(cid:14)ons made by the first Appellate Court, while discussing the evidence on record. The same reads as under: “10. Before entering upon the aspect of adjudica(cid:14)on qua the alleged illegality and irregulari(cid:14)es in the findings of impugned judgment and decree, this Court firstly would like to highlight the admi.ed facts of the case. It is not disputed and denied that in year 1984, the appellant- defendant and respondent-plain(cid:14)ff purchased two adjacent plots of 150 sq. yards area each. Both these plots were purchased by dint of separate sale deeds. The plot of respondent-plain(cid:14)ff has been towards western side of the plot purchased by the appellant-defendant. This factum is further proved from the sale deed Ex.P1, which is reflec(cid:14)ng that the respondent- plain(cid:14)ff purchased the plot of 150 sq. yards area from the vendor, who was legally competent to transfer and sell the same. The muta(cid:14)on Ex.P2 also supports and corroborates this factum. 11. However, the dispute comes whether the plot purchased by respondent-plain(cid:14)ff by dint of sale deed Ex.P1, was ever agreed to be given or not to appellant-defendant in some family se.lement. The next ques(cid:14)on would come whether the respondent-plain(cid:14)ff is owner and also in possession or not of the suit property, which is highlighted in green colour in site plan Ex.P3. 12. The appellant-defendant claim some family se.lement in this regard in year 2005 but there is no wri(cid:14)ng of any nature in this regard. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.10 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-729-2025 (O&M) -4- Secondly, the claim of family se.lement of year 2005 stand vi(cid:14)ated from the factum that in year 2015 the appellant-defendant agreed to pay Rs.8,00,000/- to respondent-plain(cid:14)ff from por(cid:14)on of 20 sq. yards land, which had been used and u(cid:14)lized by appellant-defendant for geNng his residen(cid:14)al house construc(cid:14)ng. Had there been any family se.lement either in year 2005 or thereaBer to give the plot of respondent-plain(cid:14)ff to the appellant-defendant, there was neither any need nor any reason or occasion for the appellant-defendant to agree and to pay Rs.8,00,000/- to respondent-plain(cid:14)ff qua the 20 sq. yards of area, which admi.edly has been part and parcel of the plot of sale deed Ex.P1. Thus, this aspect goes to negates in totality that there has been any kind of family se.lement between appellant-defendant and respondent-plain(cid:14)ff by agreeing to give the suit property by respondent-plain(cid:14)ff to appellant-defendant. 13. Learned counsel for appellant-defendant highly stressed upon the affidavit Ex.D1 but the same is of no value. Firstly because it is unregistered document and rela(cid:14)ng to some property worth Rs.100/- or more and thus not admissible in evidence. Secondly, the affidavit Ex.D1 do not reflects without any doubt that it was executed by respondent- defendant to give the suit property to appellant-defendant. Rather, it is an affidavit reflects that with respect to the dispute of encroached por(cid:14)on of 20 sq. yards area of plot of respondent-plain(cid:14)ff, the ma.er was resolved with the interven(cid:14)on of respectable and other family members. The affidavit Ex.D1 was executed to get the proforma respondents-defendants exonerated from criminal proceedings of the case of FIR No.154 dated 06.04.2015, P.S. City Bahadurgarh. Had the affidavit Ex.D1 been a se.lement deed between the par(cid:14)es to the case with regard to transac(cid:14)on of giving the suit property by respondent-plain(cid:14)ff to appellant- defendant, certainly there would have been no occasion for prosecu(cid:14)on of that criminal case against the appellants-defendants by respondent- plain(cid:14)ff. So, the affidavit Ex.D1 is not part of evidence, which is either admissible one or the same is either (cid:14)tle document or se.lement deed showing and proving that respondent-plain(cid:14)ff ever agreed to give the suit NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.10 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-729-2025 (O&M) -5- property to appellant-defendant. 14. ThereaBer comes the ques(cid:14)on of remaining part of evidence led by par(cid:14)es with regard to their respec(cid:14)ve claims of ownership and possession of the suit property. The respondent-plain(cid:14)ff appeared as PW1 and deposed specifically that he is owner and in possession of suit property by raising boundary walls over it as well installing gate towards the northern side of the same. Nothing fruiPul was extracted in cross-examina(cid:14)on by appellant-defendant either to belies the version of the respondent-plain(cid:14)ff or to substan(cid:14)ate his own claim and stand of appellant-defendant. On the contrary, the appellant-defendant appeared as DW1 and he in cross- examina(cid:14)on candidly admi.ed that the respondent-plain(cid:14)ff is owner of the suit property. As such, the oral account of both the appellant- defendant and respondent-plain(cid:14)ff goes to prove that the respondent- plain(cid:14)ff has proved very well that he is not only owner of the suit property but also in possession of the same by raising its boundary walls and by geNng one gate towards northern side installed over it. 15. It is also relevant and material to observe that in case of vacant land, which is in dispute before Court of Law, its possession travel with the (cid:14)tle of such property. In present case, the appellant-defendant has failed to prove his (cid:14)tle qua the suit property and opposite to it, the respondent- plain(cid:14)ff has proved his (cid:14)tle qua the suit property and therefore it would be take in the eyes of law that the respondent-plain(cid:14)ff is not only owner of suit property but also he is in se.led possession of the same. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon the case Akbar Ali Molla & Ors. Vs. Saonargaon Housing Coopera(cid:24)on Society Ltd. 2002(2) Cal.L.T.314 and Kallu Vs. Abdul Jabbar & Ors. 2015(38) RCR (Civil) 1. 16. Once, the respondent-plain(cid:14)ff has successfully proved not only his (cid:14)tle qua the suit property but also his possession over it, the learned Trial Court was legally and logically jus(cid:14)fied in gran(cid:14)ng decree of permanent injunc(cid:14)on in favour of respondent-plain(cid:14)ff and against the appellant- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.10 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-729-2025 (O&M) -6- defendant as well proforma respondents-defendants. Thus, this Court do not find any kind of illegality and irregularity in the findings recorded by learned Trial Court by dint of impugned judgment and decree dated 29.11.2022. Therefore, the findings of impugned judgment and decree stands affirmed. 7. It is clear from the abovesaid observa(cid:14)ons made by the first Appellate Court, which are based upon proper apprecia(cid:14)on of evidence produced on record that though the family se.lement was pleaded by the defendant to have taken place in 2005 but no evidence to that effect was produced. The said alleged family se.lement was vi(cid:14)ated from the fact that in 2015, the appellant-defendant had agreed to pay ₹8,00,000/- to the respondent-plain(cid:14)ff for por(cid:14)on of 20 sq. yard of land, which had been used and u(cid:14)lized by him for geNng his residen(cid:14)al house constructed. Learned first Appellate Court has rightly observed that had there been any family se.lement in the year 2005 or thereaBer, there was no requirement for the defendant to agree to pay ₹8,00,000/- to the plain(cid:14)ff qua 20 sq. yard of area, which was admi.edly part and parcel of the plot depicted in sale deed Ex.P1 belonging to the plain(cid:14)ff. Learned first Appellate Court has also rightly discarded Ex.D1 by observing that the said affidavit, which was an unregistered document purported to transfer property of value of more than ₹100/- in respect of the encroached por(cid:14)on of 20 sq. yard area and as such, it did not convey any (cid:14)tle. It was also no(cid:14)ced that regarding the encroachment of 20 sq. yard area made by the defendant, plain(cid:14)ff had even lodged an FIR at Police Sta(cid:14)on City, Bahadurgarh and it is to resolve that dispute that affidavit Ex.D1 had been executed. Learned Appellate Court has rightly observed that property in dispute is bounded by boundary wall with a gate and that possession of the said property will go with the (cid:14)tle. 8. This Court does not find any misreading of evidence or any NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.10 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-729-2025 (O&M) -7- mis-apprecia(cid:14)on of evidence on the part of the Courts below in this regard. There is no ground to interfere in the well-reasoned concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. As such, holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, same is hereby dismissed.
Decision
All the miscellaneous applica(cid:14)on(s), if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE March 07, 2025 Nee(cid:14)ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No Whether Reportable NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.10 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document