Date o Gurmeeta (si eta (since deceased) through LRs v. Smadh Baba Baba Jagroop Dass and others
Case Details
RSA No.247 2476 of 2000 -1- IN THE THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STA HARYANA AT CHAN E STATES OF PUNJAB AND HANDIGARH 105 RSA No.2476 of 2000 (O&M) RSA N Date of Decision:02.09.2025 Date o Gurmeeta (si eta (since deceased) through LRs ...Appellant Vs Smadh Baba Baba Jagroop Dass and others ...Respondents 2. RSA SA No.2477 of 2000 (O&M) Gurmeeta (si eta (since deceased) through LRs ...Appellant Vs Smadh Baba Baba Jagroop Dass and others ...Respondents 3. COCP OCP No.484 of 2001 (O&M) Sukhchain D hain Dass and another ...Petitioners Vs Surjeet Dass t Dass Chela Tulsi Dass Chela Nihal D ihal Dass and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMA AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advoc Mr. Ritvik Garg, Advocate for the appellant(s) in RSA Nos. for the petitioners in COCP No.4 Advocate with Nos.2476 and 2477 of 2000 and P No.484 of 2001. Mr. Devansh Verma, Advocate f Mr. Anmol Singh Dhillon, Advo for appellant No.2 (respondent No.2 vide order dated 10.08.200 ocate for , Advocate llant ndent No.5 transposed as appellant 8.2000). Mr. Sukhjinder Singh, Advocate Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for respondent No.1 in RSA Nos vocate A Nos.2476 and 2477 of 2000. -.- AMARINDE INDER SINGH GREWAL J. (OR (ORAL)
Legal Reasoning
PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.247 2476 of 2000 -2- 1. This order will dispose of two r aring two regular second appeals bearing No.2476 & 2 6 & 2477 of 2000 and a contempt pe 001, pt petition bearing No.484 of 2001, as they arise arise from the same proceedings. Fo facts gs. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being enu ng enumerated from RSA No.2476 of 76 of 2000. 2. The instant regular second appe y the d appeals have been preferred by the appellant-def defendant against the judgment a 1994 ment and decree dated 29.10.1994 passed by the by the learned trial Court whereby - reby two suits filed by respondents- plaintiffs for ffs for permanent injunction restraining vants raining the defendants, their servants and agents f ents from interfering into the posse suit possession of plaintiffs in the suit property ha have been partly decreed and aga d ainst the aforesaid judgment and decree of th he learned trial Court, both the p went the plaintiffs and defendants went into appeals peals and vide judgment dated 29.03.2 29.03.2000, the learned 1st Appellate llate Court dismis dismissed the appeal preferred by the peal y the defendants whereas the appeal filed by the p y the plaintiffs was allowed and ulti ed in imately, the suit was decreed in toto. The co he contempt petition has been prefe and preferred by Sukhchain Dass and Pritam Kaur Kaur, legal representatives of ap illful of appellant-defendant for willful disobedience dience of order dated 24.07.2000 passe tance 0 passed by this Court at the instance of responden ondents-plaintiffs. 3. For the sake of convenience, the to in ce, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their f their status before the learned trial C trial Court. 4. In brief, the facts are that two su ntiffs two suits were filed by the plaintiffs seeking perm g permanent injunction against the de hem, the defendants for restraining them, their agents gents and servants from interfering the rfering into the possession of the plaintiffs wit ffs with respect to the suit properties note erties as mentioned in the head note of both suits, - suits, details of which are as under:- PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.247 2476 of 2000 -3- 1991 “Suit No.139 dated 13.03.1991 Suit for permanent injunction nts, ction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from ion rom interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs from the resid the residential house as shown in the attached site plan and the ag of e agricultural land comprised of Khewat Khata No.164/254 mu - mustil 27//killa No.11/8-0, 19/7- 12, 20/8-0, 21/6-0, 22/8-0, 2 ila 0, 23/7-4, 26/2-0, mustil 28//kila No.15/2/4-0, 16/8-0, 17/8-0, 1 0, 0, 18/8-0, 19/8-0, 23/8-0, 24/8-0, 25/8-0, mustil 37//killa No.3/8 stil o.3/8-0, 4/8-0, 5/8-0, 6/8-0, mustil 71//killa No.9/0-2, mutil 74 uni 74//killa No.33/0-14, khatouni No.255 mustil 38//kila No.1 0, No.1/8-0, 2/8-0, 3/1/7-4, 10/8-0, khatouni No.256 mustil 38//kil stil //killa 9/7-12, khatouni 257 mustil 37//killa No.15/8-0, total mea las measuring 186 kanals 8 marlas situated within the revenue est eh. e estate of village Ladpur Sub Teh. Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sah Sahib. 990 Suit No.729 dated 22.10.1990 Suit for permanent injunction nts, ction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from ion rom interfering into the possession of the plaintiff and from forci tiff forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from land comprised of khew ect. hewat/khatouni No.164/254, Rect. 27//Killa No.21(6-0), 26 (2-0) ate 0) situated in the revenue estate of Village Ladpur Sub The. wo he. Amloh, District Patiala, two electric motors 5 B.H.P. alon has along with their respective kothas and two rooms of sevens khan the khans each installed/located in the above land.” 5. In brief, the facts of Suit No.1 that t No.139 dated 13.03.1991 are that plaintiff No.2 ff No.2-Surjit Singh, being the Mohat roop ohatmim of Samadh Baba Jagroop Dass situated ituated in the revenue estate of Villag n of Village Ladpur was in possession of the suit land i t land including the residential house a nd as ouse as shown in the site plan and as enumerated h rated herein above and was owned by Baba ned by plaintiff No.1-Samadh Baba PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.247 2476 of 2000 -4- Jagroop Dass Dass. Further, two electric motors suit otors were also installed in the suit land for irrig r irrigation purpose. Defendants were nd as s were trying to grab the suit land as well as the re the residential house with the help of false elp of police. They also filed a false complaint an int and one ASI accompanied by som d up by some police officials rounded up plaintiff No.2 ff No.2 and forcibly obtained his thum lank is thumb impression on some blank papers at gun gunpoint. They were requested not s but ted not to take law in their hands but since they di hey did not pay any heed and continu ntiffs ontinuously threatened the plaintiffs to dispossess ess them from the suit property, ins ty, instant suits were filed. 6. Defendants contested the suit b and suit by filing written statement and denied the fa the fact that plaintiff No.2 was Mohat adh ohatmim of plaintiff No.1-Samadh and asserte ed that it was defendant No.1 s in No.1-Gurmeet Singh, who was in possession of sion of the land as comprised in musti 0, mustil No.38//killa No.1/8-0, 2/8-0, 3/1/7-4, 9/7 , 9/7-12, 10/8-0 since the year 1 e ear 1976-77 and further that the defendants w ants were also in possession of the hou the the house as owners as well as of the electric moto motors. Replication to the written st ntiffs tten statement was filed by plaintiffs controverting verting the stand taken by defendants t and ndants in the written statement and contents of th ts of the plaint were reiterated. 7. In another suit bearing No.729 land No.729 dated 22.10.1990, the land mentioned th ned therein has already been included ty of cluded in details of suit property of suit No.139 o.139 dated 13.03.1991. In addition ction dition thereto, permanent injunction was sought w ught with respect to dispossession f of 5 sion from two electric motors of 5 B.H.P along along with kothas, two rooms of 7 k ed in of 7 khans each installed/located in the suit land. t land. It was also pleaded in this suit meet is suit that defendant No.1-Gurmeet Singh was th was the real son of plaintiff No.2 and dant .2 and in connivance with defendant PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.247 2476 of 2000 -5- No.2-Surjit K urjit Kaur, he was keeping bad eye an d eye on the suit property with an intention to g on to grab the same. 8. In the written statement filed by g the led by defendants, besides taking the preliminary o inary objections qua maintainability, b and ility, barred by Section 10 CPC and locus standi ndi, on merit, it was denied that pla of hat plaintiff No.2 was Mohatmim of plaintiff No. ff No.1-Samadh and asserted that de ingh hat defendant No.1-Gurmeet Singh was in posses possession of the suit property. 9. From the pleadings of the partie med parties, separate issues were framed in both the su the suits, however, during the penden ation endency of civil suits, an application was moved fo oved for consolidation of both suits, as e as uits, as the suit property was same as well as issue issues for consideration were comm ation common. The aforesaid application was allowed lowed vide order dated 04.06.1993 wit ence 93 with a direction that the evidence will be reco e recorded only in the main case ated case i.e. Civil Suit No.139 dated 13.03.1991 and in the said suit, following issu issues were framed:- “1. Whether the plaintiff No.1 in o.1 is the owner of the property in dispute except the residential ho l house? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff No.2 is i in 2 is in possession of the property in dispute as Mohatmim? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not mainta aintainable? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs are as are entitled to the injunction as requested for? 4A. Whether the pleas taken by ed n by the defendants in the amended written statement are barred ta? red by principle of res judicata? OPP 4B. Whether the defendants a nd nts are stopped by their act and conduct from taking pleas in th nt? in the amended written statement? OPP 5. Relief. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.247 2476 of 2000 -6- 10. In Civil Suit No.729 dated 22.1 were d 22.10.1990, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether plaintiff No.2 is o.1 2 is Mohatmim of plaintiff No.1 Samadh? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs ar uit s are in possession of the suit land?OPP 3. Whether the suit is not main m? maintainable in the present from? OPD 4. Whether the suit is liable to C? e to be stayed U/S 10 of the CPC? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiffs are as are entitled to the injunction as requested for? OPP 6. Relief.” 11. On appreciation of oral as well , the s well as documentary evidence, the learned trial trial Court vide judgment and dec artly nd decree dated 29.10.1994, partly decreed the d the Civil Suit No.139 dated 13.03.1 ction 3.03.1991 for permanent injunction restraining th ning the defendants, their servants an into nts and agents from interfering into the possessio ssession of plaintiffs qua suit property as operty except part of the suit land as comprised in ised in Khasra No.38/1(8-0), 2(8-0) total 0), 3/1(7-0) and 10(8-0), total measuring 31 ring 31 kanals 4 marlas, meaning ther rt of g thereby, suit qua aforesaid part of the suit land t land was dismissed; whereas Civil 1990 Civil Suit No.729 dated 22.10.1990 was decreed creed fully. 12. Both the plaintiffs and defenda ainst efendants went into appeals against the aforesaid resaid judgment and decree dated 29. rned ed 29.10.1994 passed by the learned trial Court and vide judgment dated 29.03.2 9.03.2000, the learned 1st Appellate llate Court dismis dismissed the appeal preferred by the peal y the defendants whereas the appeal filed by the p y the plaintiffs was allowed and the s was d the suit filed by the plaintiffs was PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.247 2476 of 2000 -7- decreed in d in toto. Aggrieved against the have he same, the defendants have approached t ched this Court by way of instant regu t regular second appeals. 13.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Chetan Mittal, learned Sen Mr. ed Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ritvik Garg, Garg, Advocate submits that the learn e learned 1st Appellate Court gravely vely erred in decr n decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in t that tiffs in toto by ignoring the fact that defendant No ant No.1 had duly proved possession atoni ession of land comprised in Khatoni No.255, mus , mustil No.38//Killa No.1(8-0), 2(8 . 0), 2(8-0), 3/1/7-4, 9/7-12, 10/8-0. Furthermore, rmore, defendant No.1 had been in po land n in possession of the aforesaid land since 1976 ti 976 till the filing of the suit in 1990, th stile 990, thus, his possession was hostile and continue ntinued, which ought to have been pro elow en protected. Both the Courts below have not ren ot rendered any finding on the issu was e issue whether plaintiff No.2 was Mohatmim im of plaintiff No.1-Samadh and such and in the absence of any such finding, the the suit filed by the plaintiffs seek was s seeking permanent injunction was wrongly decr ly decreed. In fact, on 21.09.1999, p lages 999, panchayats of various villages unanimously ously decided to appoint defendant N intiff dant No.1 as Mohtamim of plaintiff No.1-Samadh amadh and in pursuance thereto, the c Dass , the community of Shri Garib Dass Jee appointed pointed defendant No.1 as Mohatmim It is im of plaintiff No.1-Samadh. It is also argued t gued that report of local commissione rded issioner has been wrongly discarded by both the C h the Courts below. 14. Per contra, learned counsel appe mits el appearing for respondents submits that the judg e judgments and decrees passed by bo ased by both the Courts below are based on correct ap rect appreciation of facts and law an ce is aw and therefore, no interference is required in th d in the regular second appeals filed b filed by the appellants. 15. I have heard learned counsel f gone nsel for the parties and have gone through pape istance. h paper book with their able assistance PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.247 2476 of 2000 -8- 16. As regards the argument raised l for raised by learned senior counsel for the appellant ellants that there is no finding rendere w on endered by both the Courts below on the status o atus of plaintiff No.2 as Mohatmim adh, atmim of plaintiff No.1-Samadh, reference is ce is made to jamabandi for the year oved e year 1986-87, which duly proved that the prop e property was the ownership of plai rs of of plaintiff No.1-Samadh, affairs of which were were being managed by plaintiff No.2 es of f No.2 as proved from testimonies of PW-1 Surjee Surjeet Dass and PW-2 Banta Sing - a Singh. Rather, defendant No.1- Gurmeet Das et Dass while appearing as DW-1 in h itted in his cross-examination, admitted the plaintiff aintiff No.2 being Mohtamim of pl ough of plaintiff No.1-Samadh, though concocted a ted a story of him being involved w was lved with a lady but the same was discarded by ed by both the Courts below as was n gent was not substantiated by any cogent evidence. 17. The case set up by defendant N usive dant No.1 that he was in exclusive possession o sion of the entire suit property falls tood y falls flat, as plaintiff No.2 stood recorded in p ed in possession of the suit property land perty as per Ex.P7 except the land comprised in ised in Khatauni Nos.255, 256 and 257 own nd 257. Defendant No.1 was shown in possession session of Khasra No.38/1(8-0), 2 (8 total , 2 (8-0), 3/1(7-0) and 10(8-0), total measuring 31 ring 31 kanals 4 marlas and Gurmail intiff rmail Singh, another son of plaintiff No.2- Surjit D Surjit Dass had been recorded in posse 12) possession of Khasra No.38/9(7-12) and Shingara ingara Singh in Khasra No.37/15(8 hasra 7/15(8-0). With respect to Khasra Nos.38/9 and and 37/15, a change of khasra girda vour a girdawari stood recorded in favour of plaintiff N intiff No.2-Surjit Dass w.e.f. Kharif With harif 1990 to Kharif 1991. With respect to K t to Khasra No.38/1(8-0), 2 (8-0), 3 ry in 0), 3/1(7-0) and 10(8-0), entry in column No.9 No.9 of jambandi Ex.P7, defendant N ssion ndant No.1 was shown in possession of aforesaid resaid khasra numbers as ba-waja that aja-pishar, which connotes that PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.247 2476 of 2000 -9- defendant No ant No.1 was in cultivating possessio , his ssession through plaintiff No.2, his father. It w It was duly established that plain of laintiff No.2 was Mohatmim of plaintiff No.1 ff No.1-Samadh and being manager of - ger of the property of plaintiff No.1- Samadh, de h, defendant No.1 was in possess . possession through plaintiff No.2. Therefore, it ore, it is rightly held by the learned arned 1st Appellate Court that mere mere recording of ing of the name of defendant No.1 in 1 to o.1 in khasra girdawaries, Ex.D1 to D4, does not es not confer him exclusive possessor , ssessory right of the land in dispute, forming part g part of Khasra No.38//1(8-0), 2(8- - -0), 3/1(7-4), 9(7-12) and 10(8- 0). Further, urther, As regards, report of the loc rned he local commissioner, the learned Courts below below have rightly not taken into cons ither to consideration his report, as neither he consulted sulted the revenue record nor took hel The ok help of any revenue official. The exclusive pos ive possession of defendant No.1 cann from 1 cannot be established merely from the fact that ct that when the local commissioner n of sioner reached at the spot, son of defendant No ant No.1 started cutting the crop stand standing at the suit property. 18. In view of the judgments pass reme ts passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pan Pankajakshi (Dead) through Lega ers Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandri ndrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 15 hvi C 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh a gh and others (2019) 17 SCC 71 ad) 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LR LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead ers, (dead) through LRs and others, questions of ns of law are not required to be frame e the framed in second appeal before the Punjab and H and Haryana High Court whose jur d by ose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of ions of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Courts Act, 1918. 19. As an upshot of above discussio ality cussion, this Court finds no illegality and perversit rversity in concurrent finding of fact ourts of fact rendered by both the Courts below and th and the same is upheld. The regular se ular second appeals are dismissed. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.247 2476 of 2000 -10- 20. In view of the fact that re stand hat regular second appeals stand dismissed, n sed, no further order is required empt to be passed in the contempt petition, thus such. n, thus, the same is dismissed as such. 21. Pending misc. application(s), if a
Decision
(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (AMARIND RINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE ber 02, 2025 September 0 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh