High Court dismissed an appeal against a property dispute judgment, holding that the lower courts complied with remand directions as ownership follows possession under the abadi deh rule, and appellants failed to prove their title.
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No.272 of 2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
RSA No.272 of 2009 Date of Decision: 6.10.2009 Aniraj Kumar and others .....Appellants Vs. Krishan Chand and others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
Present : Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellants.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J
This order shall dispose of RSA Nos.272 and 273 of 2009, as they relate to the same parties and the same dispute.
The appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering in their peaceful possession over the property denoted by the letters ABCD and shown in the colour red, in the site plan appended with the plaint. The appellants pleaded that the suit property lies within the abadi deh of village Mullana, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala is owned and possessed by them but the respondents are interfering in their possession. The respondents filed a written statement denying the averments in the plaint and alleging that the property belongs to the Brahmin Dharamshala Trust Society, Mullana. The Dharamshala was reconstructed in the year 1990, with the help of Gram Panchayat and by
2
RSA No.272 of 2009
collecting money. The Brahmin Dharamshala Trust Society, respondent no.5 filed a separate suit for grant of an injunction to restrain the appellants from interfering in its possession over the suit property. The suits were consolidated vide order dated 13.2.2001 and evidence was led in the suit titled as Prem Chand V. Krishan Chand.
The trial court dismissed the suit filed by the appellants and decreed the suit filed by Brahmin Dharamshala Trust Society respondent no.5. The appellants filed an appeal. Vide judgement and decree dated 16.4.2007, the Additional District Judge, Ambala, accepted the appeal, set aside the judgement and decree passed by the trial court and while remitting the matter directed the trial court, to decide the matter afresh in terms of the following directions :-
“Without going into further details of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where matter should be remanded back to the trial court to decide the matter afresh and give detail findings on the issues framed in the suit titled as Brahmin Dharamshala Vs. Niraj Kumar and thereafter the learned Trial Court will weigh findings on all the issues and then deliver the judgement.
As a sequel to my above said discussion both the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgement and decree is ordered to be set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court with the direction to give detailed findings on the issues framed in the suit titled as Brahmin Dharamshala Vs. Niraj Kumar and then deliver
RSA No.272 of 2009
3
the judgement.”
The Civil Judge (Junior Division),Ambala City, after hearing arguments afresh, once again dismissed the suit filed by the appellants and decreed the suit filed by respondent no.5. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgement and decree, the appellants filed an appeal. Vide judgement and decree dated 9.9.2008, the Additional District Judge, Ambala, dismissed the appeal.
Counsel for the appellants submits that the trial court has not obeyed the directions issued by the Additional District Judge, Ambala, while remanding the matter. The trial court was directed to give a detailed finding as to the ownership of Brahmin Dharamshala before delivering its judgement. Despite this direction, the trial court placed the onus to prove ownership on the appellants and then proceeded to hold that in the absence of any satisfactory evidence produced by the appellants to prove their ownership, the Brahmin Dharamshala is held to be owner in possession of the suit property. It is submitted that as the trial court has ignored the directions issued by the Additional District Judge, Ambala, the impugned judgements are illegal and void and, therefore, the following substantial questions of law arise for adjudication :-
“a. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the impugned judgements and decrees passed by the learned courts below ignoring the specific directions contained in the order dated 16.4.2007 can be sustained in law ?
b. Whether the approach of the learned courts below
RSA No.272 of 2009
4
in decreeing the suit filed by Brahmin Dharamshala Mullana and dismissing the suit filed by appellants ignoring the fact that the Respondent Dharamshala had failed to discharge its onus and had failed to led affirmative evidence to show its title, is not illegal and unsustainable in law ?”
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the impugned judgements and considered the questions of law framed by counsel for the appellants but express my inability to hold that the impugned judgements suffer from any error so as to raise a question of law, much less a substantial question of law. A perusal of the judgement passed by the trial court discloses that it has complied with the order of remand, in letter and in spirit. The suit property falls within the abadi deh of village Mullana. As a general rule ownership of land that falls within the abadi of village follows possession. The trial court has relied upon evidence produced by Brahmin Dharamshala, in the shape of proceedings of the Gram Panchayat, copy of the muster roll, documents reflecting the construction of the Dharamshala with the help of the Gram Panchayat, the electricity connection in the name of Ishwar Dutt, a member of the society, the existence of a peepul tree with a platform for the members to meet and oral depositions to hold that the society is in possession and, therefore, owner of the suit property. The argument that the order of remand has been ignored is, therefore, factually incorrect. The appellants on the other hand have failed to adduce any evidence in support of their claim of ownership or possession and despite an assertion that there is documentary evidence
RSA No.272 of 2009
5
to prove their ownership have failed to produce any such evidence. The argument that the onus was placed upon the appellants to prove their ownership is also incorrect.
In view of what has been stated herein above, as there is no merit in these appeals, they are dismissed with no order as to costs.
6.10.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether impugned judgments violating specific directions of a remand order merited setting aside.
Whether the trial court erred in decreeing the respondent's suit without evidence given the appellants' failure to adduce proof.
Aniraj Kumar and others
Krishan Chand and others
Rajive Bhalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
