The High Court
Case Details
RSA No.4128 of 1999 (O&M) with XOBJS-18-C of 2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4128 of 1999 (O&M) with **** XOBJS-18-C of 2000 Reserved on: 27.03.2025 Pronounced on: 02.04.2025 Karnail Singh Amarjit Kaur Vs. .....Appellant .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Tarunveer Vashist, Advocate and Mr. Shoryaveer Vashist, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate for the respondent. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Suit for possession with regard to 40 kanals of land situated within the revenue estate of Village Hariyau, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur, as detailed in the plaint and consequen(al relief of permanent injunc(on filed by plain(ff -Karnail Singh (appellant herein) was decreed by the trial
Legal Reasoning
Court of learned Sub Judge First Class, Sunam vide his judgment dated 05.02.1993. The aggrieved defendant – Amarjit Kaur (respondent herein) approached the Appellate Court. Vide judgment dated 23.04.1999, the Appellate Court of learned District Judge, Sangrur partly accepted the appeal and held that plain(ff was en(tled to the possession only in respect of 10 kanal 10 marla land out of the suit land claimed by the plain(ff. 2. Against the above-said judgment of the First Appellate Court, plain(ff has approached this Court by filing present RSA No.4128 of 1999; whereas, the respondent- defendant has filed Cross Objec(on No.18-C of 2000 contending that the en(re suit was liable to be dismissed. RENU 2025.04.03 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.1 out of 6 pages RSA No.4128 of 1999 (O&M) with XOBJS-18-C of 2000 3. Trial Court record was called. Same has been perused with the able assistance provided by both the par(es. In order to avoid confusion, the par(es shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court. 4. It is necessary to give descrip(on of the suit land, the possession of which was claimed by the plain(ff. The suit land measuring 40 kanal, as per Jamabandi for the year 1983-84, is comprised as under:- Sr. No. Khewat No. Khatauni No. Rect. No. Khasra No. (Area) [In K- M] 1. 867/1080 1057/1309 2. 3. 6 7 6 15 (8-0) 16 (8-0) 10 (2-10) 11 (8-6) 20 Min (5-4) 5 Min (8-0) Total Area 40 K 5. According to plain(ff, suit property was an evacuee property, which vested in the Central Government by virtue of No(fica(on of 1962 and the same was alloCed to him (plain(ff) vide Sanad dated 29.11.1974 (Ex.P1). It was alleged that in connivance with the Revenue Department, defendant had encroached upon the suit property on 18.11.1984 without having any right to do so and she further wanted to alienate the same. With these simple averments, plain(ff prayed for decree of possession of the suit land on the basis of (tle. He also claimed decree of permanent injunc(on to restrain the defendant from aliena(ng the suit property in any manner. 6. Contes(ng the suit, defendant claimed that suit property was alloCed to her by Provincial Government by way of a conveyance deed and that possession thereof was delivered to her in due course of law. She RENU 2025.04.03 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.2 out of 6 pages RSA No.4128 of 1999 (O&M) with XOBJS-18-C of 2000 denied the (tle or possession of the plain(ff on the suit property and alleged that plain(ff wanted to grab the same. With these submissions, she prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the par(es was taken on record. Trial Court found that allotment of the suit property in favour of the plain(ff was prior in (me comparing to the defendant. It was further found that allotment in favour of the plain(ff had never been cancelled. It was further found that it is DW2 - Sucha Singh, who was in possession of the suit land as a tenant and he had admiCed during his tes(mony that he was tenant under the plain(ff and earlier used to pay batai to him but as the dispute arose, he stopped paying batai to the plain(ff and thus, it is the plain(ff, who was the owner of the suit property. With these findings, trial Court decreed the suit for possession of the suit property in favour of plain(ff on 05.02.1993. 8. However, the Appellate Court found that out of the suit property measuring 40 kanal comprised in various khasra numbers as detailed in the plaint, only two numbers comprised in Rectangle No.7, Khasra No.10 Min (2-10) and Khasra No.11 (8-6) were part of the Sanad Ex.P1 issued in favour of the plain(ff. Rest of the khasra numbers, descrip(on of which was given by the plain(ff, did not form part of the Sanad and as such, plain(ff was en(tled to possession only of these khasra numbers i.e. Khasra No.10 Min (2-10) and Khasra No.11 (8-6) of Rectangle No.7 out of the suit land. Since it was a double allotment of these numbers and the allotment in favour of the plain(ff was prior in (me, so he was held en(tled to the possession of these khasra numbers only. Appeal was accordingly partly accepted by the Appellate Court on 23.04.1999. 9. Assailing the afore-said findings of the Appellate Court, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plain(ff that Appellate Court has given wrong finding that plain(ff was en(tled to possession only
Legal Reasoning
in respect of two khasra numbers. It is contended that plain(ff is en(tled to RENU 2025.04.03 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.3 out of 6 pages RSA No.4128 of 1999 (O&M) with XOBJS-18-C of 2000 the possession of the en(re suit land, which tallies with the Sanad Ex.P1. 10. On the other hand, in support of cross- objec(ons, it is contended by ld. Counsel for the defendant that it is the Provincial Government, which was owner of the suit property, which had alloCed the suit land to the defendant and, therefore, plain(ff was not en(tled to possession of any part of the suit land and, therefore, the trial Court wrongly decreed the suit and the First Appellate Court wrongly decreed the suit partly. She claimed that en(re suit is liable to be dismissed. 11. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and have appraised the record. 12. Perusal of the Sanad dated 29.11.1974 (Ex.P1) issued in favour of the plain(ff by the Central Government, Rehabilita(on Department reveal that it in respect of 142 kanal 10 marla of land. On the other hand, conveyance deed dated 01.01.1985 Ex.DW4/A issued by Tehsildar Sales- cum-Managing Officer, Pa(ala in favour of defendant is in respect of 80 kanals of land. Defendant never challenged the Sanad issued in favour of the plain(ff so as to assail the (tle of the Central Government Rehabilita(on Department in issuing the said Sanad in favour of the plain(ff. 13. The comparison of the two Sanads would reveal that there is double allotment in respect of some of the khasra numbers. Khasra number 10 Min (2-10) of Rectangle No. 7 finds men(on in both the documents i.e. Sanad in favour of the plain(ff, and conveyance deed in favour of the defendant. Since allotment in favour of the plain(ff is prior in (me, so the First Appellate Court has rightly held that plain(ff is en(tled to the possession of the said khasra number as comprised in Khasra No.10 Min. (2-10) of Rectangle No.7. 14. Khasra No.11 as comprised in Rectangle No.7 (8-6), the possession of which has been claimed by the plain(ff and which forms part RENU 2025.04.03 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.4 out of 6 pages RSA No.4128 of 1999 (O&M) with XOBJS-18-C of 2000 of the Sanad in his favour, is not included the Sanad in favour of the defendant and as such, the First Appellate Court has rightly held that the plain(ff is en(tled to the possession of this khasra number also i.e. Khasra No.11 (8-6) of Rectangle No.7. 15. As far as khasra No.15(8-0) and 16(8-0) of Rectangle No.6 are concerned, these are included in the conveyance deed issued in favour of the defendant. Plain(ff has claimed possession of these numbers also but the Sanad Ex.P1 issued in his favour would reveal that khasra Nos.15 and 16, the allotment of which was made in his favour are of Rectangle No.7 and not of Rectangle No.6. As such, the First Appellate Court has rightly held that the plain(ff is not en(tled to the possession of these two khasra numbers, i.e. 15 & 16 of Rectangle No.6. 16. Coming to Khasra No.20 Min. of Rectangle No.7, plain(ff claims possession thereof and submits that its area was 05 kanal 04 marla. The said fact is supported by the Sanad in his favour Ex.P1, which reveals that khasra No.20 of Rectangle No.7 with area of 05 kanal 04 marla was alloCed to him. In the conveyance deed in favour of the defendant, the area of khasra No.20 of Rectangle No.7 has been shown to be (5-0). Since the khasra No.20 min of Rectangle No.7 had already been alloCed to the plain(ff, therefore, it is held that allotment in favour of the defendant was wrong in respect of the said khasra number and as such, plain(ff is held en(tled to the possession of Khasra No.20 Min. (5K-4M) of Rectangle No.7 also. 17. Coming to Khasra No.5 Min. of Rectangle No.6, in the Sanad Ex.P1, this khasra number finds men(on at two places. Allotment of 1 kanal 10 marlas of this khasra is shown with nature of land as Nehri, whereas area of 06 kanal 10 marlas of this number is shown to be Barani. Plain(ff claimed possession of this khasra number by sta(ng the total area as 8-0. Unfortunately, learned District Judge wrongly rejected the said conten(on of the plain(ff, inasmuch as the total area of khasra No.5 min of Rectangle RENU 2025.04.03 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.5 out of 6 pages RSA No.4128 of 1999 (O&M) with XOBJS-18-C of 2000 no.6 is 8 kanal. Simply because in the Sanad issued in favour of the plain(ff i.e. Ex.P1, the allotment of this land is shown to be at two places by referring to the nature of the land i.e. 1-10 as Nehri and 6-10 as Brani, it does not mean that the said number did not tally with the Sanad of the plain(ff. Allotment of this khasra number No.5 min of Rectangle No.6, the total area of 08 kanal in favour of defendant vide conveyance deed Ex.DW4/A is absolutely illegal, as allotment in favour of the plain(ff was prior in (me. 18. On the basis of en(re discussion as above, it is held that apart from khasra No.10 Min. (2-10) and khasra No.11(8-6) of respondent No.7, regarding which decree has been passed by learned District Judge, plain(ff- appellant is also en(tled to the possession of the suit land comprised in khasra No.20 Min. (5-4) of Rectangle No.7; and khasra No.5 Min. (8-0) of Rectangle No.6. 19. As such, the appeal as filed by the plain(ff- appellant is accepted to the afore-said extent. The claim for possession in respect of khasra No.15 and 16 of Rectangle No.6 has been rightly rejected by the First Appellate Court. 20. As far as the cross objec(ons filed by the defendant are concerned, the same are found to be without any merit in view of the en(re discussion as above. 21. Consequently, the present appeal as filed by the plain(ff is partly accepted to the extent as indicated above; whereas, cross objec(on as filed by the defendant is hereby dismissed. April 02, 2025 Renu (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No Whether Reportable RENU 2025.04.03 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.6 out of 6 pages