03.07.2025 Raj Bala and Others Parmanand and Others v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 129 RSA-2208-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision.:03.07.2025 Raj Bala and Others Parmanand and Others Vs. …..Appellants .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Legal Reasoning
Present:- Mr. J.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by contes$ng defendant Nos.1 to 3 against the concurrent findings of the courts below. 2. Khema @ Khem Chand was the owner of a residen$al property situated in old abadi of village Jatoli, Haily Mandi, Tehsil Pataudi, District Gurugram as detailed in the plaint, having purchased it by virtue of a registered sale deed bearing Vasika No.117 dated 26.09.1955 (Ex.P1); and as shown by le;ers ‘ABCD’ in the enclosed site plan. Said Khema has since expired. Plain$ffs (respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein) and proforma defendants (respondent Nos.6 to 10 herein) are legal heirs of deceased Khema. Suit was brought by the plain$ffs contending that during his life$me, Khema @ Khem Chand had allowed one Munshi Ram to reside in the rear por$on measuring 33 @. x 31 @. of the above said property, consis$ng of two rooms and two $n sheds besides the latrine as shown in red colour by le;er ‘ABEF’ in the site plan, as a licensee on the condi$on that as soon as Munshi Ram constructs his shelter on the plot measuring 3 Marla comprised in Khasra No.130//13/1/16 (o-3) allo;ed to him by the Government/Panchayat being NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.04 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2208-2025 (O&M) -2- a landless labourer, he will hand over the vacant possession of the abovesaid por$on i.e. ‘ABEF’ to Khema. Munshi Ram died in 1994-95 and disputed por$on con$nued to be occupied by his widow Smt. Chameli Devi and a@er her death in 2008-09, contes$ng defendants i.e. appellants herein are possessing the same. Though the said defendants raised construc$on of the house on their own plot, but they did not vacate the disputed por$on of the property belonging to the plain$ffs and rather, started asser$ng ownership of the same on the basis of forged and fic$$ous municipal record. Plain$ffs terminated the licence of the defendants in March, 2011 and asked them to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed por$on but they refused, compelling the plain$ffs to file the suit seeking a decree of declara$on with consequen$al relief of mandatory injunc$on. 3. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 i.e. appellants contested the suit by pleading $tle to the disputed property by way of adverse possession. 4. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the par$es was taken on record. Trial Court found that plain$ffs were owner of the property in dispute and as such, decreed the suit with direc$on to defendant Nos.1 to 3- appellants to hand over the vacant possession of the rear por$on of the suit property shown by le;er ‘ABEF’ in the site plan (Ex.P2) to the plain$ffs. However, the relief of mesne profit claimed by the plain$ffs was declined. The said judgment dated 23.11.2019 passed by the trial Court was affirmed by the first Appellate Court vide judgment dated 24.03.2025, while dismissing the appeal of defendant Nos.1 to 3- appellants. 5. Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel that possession of the appellants on the property in dispute is well proved on record and therefore, they are en$tled to protec$on having become owner thereof by way of adverse possession. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.04 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2208-2025 (O&M) -3- 6. This Court has considered submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and find no merit therein. 7. It is conceded by learned counsel for the appellants that as per the evidence on record, it is Khema, the predecessor-in-interest of the plain$ffs, who had purchased the total property as shown by le;ers ‘ABCD’ in the site plan (Ex.P2) by virtue of sale deed dated 26.09.1955 (Ex.P1) from one Birbal son of Sahab Ram. Jamabandis (Ex.P8 to P15), Khasra Girdawries (Ex.P16 to P.26) and other revenue documents further supported the case of the plain$ffs in this regard. The mere fact that defendants- appellants claimed $tle by adverse possession clearly indicated that they admi;ed the fact that plain$ffs/their predecessor was the $tle holder of the property. Defendants- appellants failed to plead the necessary ingredient to make out a case of adverse possession. 8. As has been observed by the first Appellate Court, even the witnesses examined by the defendants- appellants admi;ed that it is Khem Chand, the predecessor-in-interest of the plain$ffs, who had purchased the suit property. It has also been proved on record that Munshi Ram, the predecessor of the appellants- contes$ng defendants had been allo;ed a plot of 100 sq. @. allo;ed by the Panchayat and the same is s$ll in their possession and which is different from the property in dispute. Smt. Raj Bala, one of the contes$ng defendants examined as DW-4 made contradictory statements, inasmuch as she claimed that suit property was purchased by her father-in-law Munshi Ram from Birbal but in later part of examina$on, she admits that in 1955, it is Khema who had purchased the suit property. She tried to explain that Khema along with Munshi Ram had purchased the suit property jointly but concedes that there is no sale deed in favour of Munshi Ram. 9. Having regard to all the aforesaid facts and circumstances and NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.04 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2208-2025 (O&M) -4- the evidence produced on record, both the Courts have recorded concurrent findings to the effect that it is the plain$ffs (respondents herein) who are the owner of the property in dispute and that contes$ng defendants- appellants failed to prove the stand taken by them. 10. This Court does not find any ground whatsoever to interfere in the well-reasoned concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below, which are based upon proper apprecia$on of evidence on record. As such, holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, same is hereby dismissed.
Decision
Miscellaneous applica$on (s), if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE July 03, 2025 Nee$ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No Whether Reportable NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.04 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document