02.12.2025 Raj Baldev S aldev Singh v. Gram Panch Panchayat and others
Case Details
RSA-4352- -2013 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 224 RSA-4352-2013(O&M) Date of Decision: 02.12.2025 Raj Baldev S aldev Singh .…Appellant Versus Gram Panch Panchayat and others ....Respondents CORAM: H M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate fo cate for the appellant. Mr. Davinder Kumar, Advocate vocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. Naveen Kumar, Addl. A.G. for respondents No. 2 and 3. l. A.G., Haryana NIDHI GUP I GUPTA, J. 1. The plaintiff is in second ap rent nd appeal against the concurrent judgments ents and decrees of both the Courts be the urts below whereby suit filed by the appellant for for declaration to the effect that pla
Legal Reasoning
land that plaintiff is the owner of the land Marked as d as ABCDE (hereinafter referred was ferred to as ‘the suit land’) was dismissed by sed by both the Courts below. 2. The parties shall hereinafter be atus fter be referred to as per their status before the le the learned trial Court i.e. the appella the appellant is being referred to as ‘the plaintiff’, wh whereas the respondents as ‘the de defendants’. 3. It was the pleaded case of the the f the appellant in the plaint that the land in disp n dispute belonged to the predecesso ntiff ecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.03 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4352- -2013 (O&M) -2- since the ye the year 1853. However, in the year ram year 1993, defendant No. 1-Gram Panchayat ayat had prepared a false and frivolo eh rivolous map of village Abadi Deh and got it pa t it passed in 1996, thereby showing o be owing the property in dispute to be owned and p and possessed by defendant No. 1. Th had 1. Thereafter, defendant No. 1 had also construc onstructed building of Anganwari over ding over the suit land without heeding to the reques requests of the plaintiff. Accordingly, by dingly, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff aintiff on 17.07.2002/ 05.07.2006, se e is 006, seeking declaration that he is owner of the of the suit land. 4. Upon appraisal and considerati ideration of the pleadings, as also the evidenc vidence adduced by the parties, th the learned trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide j vide judgment and decree dated 2009. 16.12.2009 5. The Civil Appeal filed by the y the plaintiff was also dismissed by the learn learned Ist Appellate Court, vide j vide judgment and decree dated 28.05.2013 2013. Hence, the present second appea appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the app e appellant-plaintiff assails the impugned j ned judgments and decrees of bo of both the Courts below by submitting th ing that the plaintiff had produced en ced enough documentary evidence on record t cord to show that the suit land wa nd was owned by him and his predecessor essors-in-interest. It is submitted itted that by way of additional evidence led led before the Ist Appellate Court, Court, the plaintiff had brought on record Aks S ks Shajra Nasaf and Mutation No. n No. 929 from which it was clear that the suit e suit land was in the ownership of th p of the forefathers of the plaintiff from 1853 t 853 to 1993. Thus, finding of the lea the learned Courts below that the plaintiff was ff was unable to prove the lineage fro from 1853 to 1993 is incorrect. RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.03 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4352- -2013 (O&M) -3- In fact, the the Ist Appellate Court, has failed failed to consider the additional evidence bro ce brought on record by the appellant ellant at the time of passing of the impugned ju ned judgment and decree dated 28.0 d 28.05.2016. It is submitted that the plaintiff tiff was in USA when the case was e was fixed before the learned trial Court and, th and, therefore, was unable to produce duce the said additional evidence before the l the learned trial Court. It was in as in view of this fact that the application o ation of the appellant filed under Or er Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was allowed by t ourt. d by the learned Ist Appellate Court. 7.
Legal Reasoning
Ld. Counsel for the appellant a llant also submits that the learned courts below below were in error in non-suiting uiting the plaintiff on account of limitation as as, no issue in this regard was was framed by the learned trial court. It is ac It is accordingly, prayed that the impu e impugned judgments and decrees of both the C h the Courts below may be set aside. 8. Per Contra, learned counsel for sel for the State/respondents No. 2 and 3, vehe vehemently opposes the submissio missions made on behalf of the appellant and ant and submits that all the evidence p ence produced by the plaintiff has been duly co uly considered in detail by both the C the Courts below. It is submitted that the plai e plaintiff has been unable to prove o rove ownership of his forefathers over the suit he suit land. Further, it is submitted tha ted that plaintiff has also unable to establish his ish his connection with Meetu Singh ingh who is recorded as owner in possession o sion of the suit land in the year 1853 1853. It is accordingly prayed that the present a esent appeal be dismissed. 9. No other argument has been een raised by learned counsel for either of the of the parties. I have heard learned cou ed counsel for parties and perused RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.03 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4352- -2013 (O&M) -4- the case fil ase file in great detail. I find no no merit whatsoever in the submissions ssions advanced on behalf of appellant pellant-plaintiff. 10. It is the case of the plaintif laintiff that his predecessors-in- interest/foref t/forefathers were owners in posse possession of the suit land. In support, the rt, the plaintiff had produced the Ur Urdu Kitab Khasra Paimaish Abadi Mauz auza Uncha Chandna (Ex. P-5 - at at page 138 of the lower Court record) for th ) for the year 1853. In the said Field B Field Book, at serial Nos. 173 and 174name of me of one Meetu Singh is entered as as owner in possession of the suit land. Ho . However, the plaintiff has failed iled to bring anything on record to show his con his connection with said Meetu Singh Singh. In this regard, the plaintiff had relied u lied upon Aks Shajra Nasaf (at page t page No. 86 of the lower Court record). Ho ). However, even from the sai e said document the alleged lineage/conn /connection of the appellant with Me Meetu Singh is not made out. Thus, mere b mere bald statement of the appellant ellant-plaintiff that he is related to Meetu Singh Singh, is not sufficient to establish h blish his claim over the suit land. Furthermore rmore, the plaintiff has not even stat en stated as to how and in which manner he is r he is related to Meetu Singh. 11. The plaintiff has further claim claimed that his forefathers are owners in po s in possession of the suit land since t since time immemorial. However, as noted ab ted above there is not a smidgen of gen of evidence to establish that Meetu Singh Singh S/o Mam Singh was predecesso ecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff. The plaintiff laintiff has not produced any docume ocumentary evidence to show that his forefathe efathers were owners in possession of sion of the suit land since 1853 till 1993. RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.03 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4352- -2013 (O&M) -5- 12. It is the case of the plaintiff that iff that a wrong was committed by the defenda efendants by changing the site ma ite map. The earliest document produced by by the plaintiff is the Field Book Book and Map pertaining to the year 1853 (E 853 (Ex. P-5). However, keeping in v ng in view the fact that 140 years have passed assed since 1853; and also the fact tha act that as per the plaintiff, the site plan has bee as been changed in the year 1993, 993, plaintiff has been unable to establish his ish his connection with the suit land t land. Thus, any reliance by the plaintiff upo ff upon the Field Book of the year 185 ar 1853 without placing on record any documen cument for the intervening years up to s up to 1993 cannot be of any help to the plainti plaintiff. 13. Needless to say, burden to pr to prove his case was upon the plaintiff. It w . It was for the plaintiff to establish ablish his connection with the suit property wit ty with sufficient documentary evide evidence. Even if the case of the plaintiff is a ff is accepted then it was for the pla the plaintiff to explain as to what transpired in ired in respect of the suit property fr erty from 1853 till 1993. On the contrary, it i ry, it is the own averment of the plain e plaintiff that the defendants have constructed ucted 02 room, a kitchen and Vera Verandah of Anganwari in the disputed pro ed property. The plaintiff had even fai en failed to specifically aver as to when the afo the aforesaid construction was made made; or how he was ousted from the suit land it land. Even no explanation was g was given by the plaintiff as to whether he er he had raised any objection when th hen the defendants started to raise construction uction over the suit land. Thus, there , there are too many loopholes in the case put se put up by the plaintiff. 14. Even otherwise, suit of the plai he plaintiff is barred by limitation as it is the o s the own case of the plaintiff that the hat the construction was raised by RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.03 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4352- -2013 (O&M) -6- the defendan fendants in the year 1996; whereas ereas the suit has been filed on 17.07.2002/0 2002/05.07.2006. Relevant findings dings of the Ist Appellate Court are in para para 12 of the judgment dated 2 ated 28.05.2013 which reads as follows:- “12. It is settled proposition stand on his own legs and cann in the title of the defendants. plaintiff claimed the property and possessed by his predeces Meetu Singh since the yea requirement on his part to estab his connectivity through inhe whose name figures at serial Paimaish abadi Mauza Uncha There is no evidence led by t connected with Meetu Singh a Meetu Singh’s his property re possession during the year 185 place to mention here that statement of attorney of the pla nothing to prove connectivity o in question. Further, even for a that the property in dispute rem 1993, but thereafter a new map No. 1 which was passed in t property in question as Shaml No. 1 further raised constructi The plaintiff has failed to expl such construction to be raised mum against such construction defendant No. 1, till the year 2 was filed. Thus, in totality, lea dismissed the suit as it lacks sub This suit is also barred b it is taken that the construction 1 in the year 1996 after passin ten years gap in filing of the which is certainly time barred mention here that surprisingly about raising of construction defendant No. 1, but he has no and the year of starting of such he himself is not sure of the are raised. Had this construction b land unauthorizedly by defenda tion of law that plaintiff has to cannot take benefit of weakness nts. Since, in the case in hand, erty in dispute had been owned ecessor in interest starting from yea 1853 till 1993, foremost establish his claim, was to prove inheritance with Meetu Singh, erial No. 173 in Kitab Khasra cha Chandna for the year 1853. by the plaintiff that how his is gh and what status remained of ty regarding its ownership and r 1853 till 1993. It is not out of that besides mere self-serving e plaintiff and a witness, there is ity of plaintiff with the property for argument sake, it is accepted e remained with the plaintiff till map was prepared by defendant in the year 1996, showing the amlat deh, on which defendant ruction for Anganwari purpose. xplain as to why did he allow ised and also as to why he kept tion allegedly raised illegally by ear 2006, when the present suit , learned trial court has rightly s substance. red by limitation because even if tion was raised by defendant No. ssing of sit plan, there has been the present suit for declaration arred. It is not out of place to ingly, the plaintiff has alleged tion over the suit property by s not explained the time, month such construction, which means e area and of the construction so ion been raised in the plaintiff’s endant No. 1, the plaintiff would RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.03 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4352- -2013 (O&M) -7- have approached the cou construction on the first possib not meaning thereby his claim i court against illegal ssible opportunity which he did im is hollow.” such 15. In respect of submission o ion of the appellant regarding limitation, tion, reference is made to a judgmen dgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. R. Nagaraj (Dead) Through Lrs. h Lrs. and Another vs. Rajmani and Others thers: Law Finder Doc Id # 271717 717171relevant part of which is as under:- “B. Limitation Act, 1963 Se Limitation in civil suits – Held, the limitation period prescribed court under Section 3 of the L and a suit must be dismissed limitation, even if the issue is n parties.” Section 3 and Article 59 – eld, courts must strictly enforce ribed by statute. The duty of the he Limitation Act is mandatory, ssed if it is ex facie barred by is not specifically raised by the 16. Learned counsel for the appell appellant is unable to dispute or controvert th vert the concurrent findings rendered b dered by both the Courts below; as also the lega e legal position noted above. 17. As such, the present second cond appeal, being meritless, is ssed. dismissed. 18. Pending application(s) if any als
Decision
any also stand(s) disposed of. 2025 02.12.2025 rishu ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.03 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.