Date o v. Kishan Singh n Singh and others
Case Details
RSA-382-20 2016 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIG E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 239 RSA-382-2016 (O&M) RSA Shamsher Si her Singh and others .… Appellants Date of Decision: 10.09.2025 Date o Versus Kishan Singh n Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM: H
Legal Reasoning
M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate fo cate for the appellants. None for respondent No. 1. Mr. Rohit Sapehiya, Advocate f ocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. NIDHI GUP I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. The present second appeal has al has been filed by the appellant- plaintiffs ag ffs against the concurrent judgment low gments of both the Courts below whereby the by the suit for declaration to the effect te effect that the site ABCD in the site plan is own s owned and possessed by the plai e of e plaintiff being part of house of plaintiffs alo ffs alongwith the defendant No. 7 sh and . 7 shown red in the site plan and bounded as u ed as under: North: North: House of Thoru Ram and m and defendants No. 1 to 3, South: South: House of Peelu Ram, East: East: ingh, House of Karnail Singh, West: West: House of Rachhpal Singh Singh and Sham Singh etc. Situated in v ed in village Prana Bhangala, Tehsil M hsil Mukerian. 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 appel o as appellants are being referred to as ‘the plaintiff laintiffs’, whereas the respondents as ‘t ts as ‘the defendants’. RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.12 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-382-20 2016 (O&M) -2- 3. Learned counsel for the ap ia, he appellant-plaintiffs, inter alia, submits that ts that the impugned judgments of bo ased of both the Court below are based on surmises mises and conjectures as, it is the clea the e clear case of the plaintiffs that the handpump a ump and the Khurli installed over th em. ver the suit land belongs to them. Even posses possession of the plaintiffs over the the er the suit land is admitted by the respondents. dents. It is accordingly, prayed that t ould that the suit of the plaintiffs could not have bee ve been dismissed. 4. Per Contra, learned counsel f d 3 nsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that ts that the suit land belongs to Gram P suit ram Panchayat, therefore, civil suit of the plain plaintiffs was not maintainable. It are It is submitted that there are concurrent f rrent findings of both the Courts belo suit ts below to the effect that the suit land is in th s in the ownership of the Gram Panch filed Panchayat, therefore, the suit filed by the plaint plaintiffs is not maintainable. 5. No other argument is raised on ed on behalf of the parties. I have heard learne learned counsel for the parties and per nd perused the case file in detail. I find no m no merit in the submissions m ons made on behalf of the appellant/pla ant/plaintiffs. 6. The whole issue be summed up ed up by the findings recorded by the learned A arned Additional District Judge, Hosh , Hoshiarpur, in para No. 9 of the impugned ju ned judgment and decree dated 08 08.09.2015, which reads as follows:- “9. I have heard learned cou gone through the record of the for declaration that they are o Plaintiff Jeet Singh as well admitted that doors of house No. 1 to 3 and 6 open in the admitted that gate of Haveli of southern side and the doors Singh, Philla Ram and Thoru o counsel for the parties and have the case. Plaintiffs filed the suit re owners of the site in dispute. well as PW2 Shamsher Singh use of plaintiff and defendants the site in dispute. PW1 also li of Kishan Singh open towards ors of the house of Shamsher ru open in the site in dispute. It RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.12 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-382-20 2016 (O&M) -3- dispute is between the house of is also admitted that site in dis . 1 to 3, 6 and 7. Thus it is clear plaintiff and defendants No. 1 t passage leading to the house of that property in dispute is pass ants No. 1 to 3, 6 and 7. Plaintiff plaintiffs as well as defendants ve any document to show that has not been able to prove a ownership. The resolution dated property in dispute is his owne proved on record as EX D4/B 24-8-1979 has been duly prov operty was brick paved by Gram according to which this proper Ex. D4/A has been proved on Panchayat. Even notice Ex. upon the plaintiff to remove record which was served up hich he has constructed in the handupum and Khurali which view above, the learned trial passage. Thus keeping in vie perty in dispute is passage and court rightly held that propert possessed by the appellants and not owned or exclusively posse uit. thus rightly dismissed the suit. nsel for the appellants argued Though learned counsel admitted over the property in that since possession is adm ion should be granted but said dispute, therefore, injunction s of any merit as it has not been argument is totally devoid of a pute is exclusively possessed by proved that property in dispute vidence it is clear that property the appellants. From the evide passage being used by the in dispute is a common pa lants have encroached upon by defendants and the appellants manger (khurli). The case law installing handpump and man e appellant is not applicable to cited by Ld. Counsel for the ap of the present case.” the facts and circumstance of th 7. Even otherwise, the present s second appeal is liable to be dismissed on sed on the short ground that this Cour s Court in Regular Second Appeal has limited mited jurisdiction to interfere in the c n the concurrent findings of facts returned by ed by the learned Courts below. The . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Shivali ivali Enterprises v. Godawari (De (Deceased) (SC): Law Finder Doc Id # 2 # 2034559 has held that no mat o matter howsoever incorrect or grossly erron y erroneous the concurrent findings o ings of the learned courts below may be, this e, this Court in Second Appeal can al can interfere in the concurrent findings only gs only where there is an error in law in law or procedure. In the present case, no suc no such error in law and procedure ha ure has been made out by learned counsel for t el for the appellant. RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.12 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-382-20 2016 (O&M) -4- 8. Learned counsel for the appell appellants is unable to controvert or dispute th dings. ute the above said facts and findings. 9. In view of the discussion abov above, no ground is made out to interfere in t re in the impugned judgments and de and decrees of the learned Courts below. The . The present Regular Second Appeal i ppeal is hereby dismissed. 10. Pending application(s), if any, s
Decision
any, shall also stand disposed of. 2025 10.09.2025 rishu ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.12 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.