In a Regular Second Appeal against decrees in a suit for possession and restitution of encroached land, the Single Judge held that no substantial question of law arose as the lower courts had recorded pure findings of fact, and dismissed the appeal.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
R.S.A. No.234 of 1989 Date of Decision: 2.2.2010
Nachhattar Singh and another.
....... Appellants through Shri V.K.Jain, Senior Advocate with Shri J.L.Malhotra, Advocate.
Versus
Smt.Veena Kumari.
....... Respondent through None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Mahesh Grover,J.
This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 28.4.1988 and 19.10.1988 passed respectively by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Patiala (described hereinafter as the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the first appellate Court') whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed and the appeal of the defendants-appellants was dismissed.
The respondent had filed a suit for possession claiming herself to be the owner of plot no.61 which she had purchased on 8.12.1972 from one Smt. Harbhajan Kaur. The possession thereof was taken by her in the
R.S.A.No. 234 of 1989
-2-
same year and thereafter, she enclosed it by raising boundary wall, which was allegedly removed by the appellants and they made encroachment on the plot in question. The appellants were stated to be the owners in possession of plot nos.59 and 60, which adjoin the plot of the respondent.
A criminal case was also registered regarding the demolition of the boundary wall. It was prayed by the respondent in the suit that the possession of the encroached part of the plot in dispute be restored to her after directing the appellants to remove the encroachment that has been made by them.
Upon notice, the appellants appeared and filed their written statement contesting the suit. They denied the factum of the respondent being owner of plot no.61 and pleaded that the boundaries of the plot have not been correctly given. Their ownership over the plot nos. 59 and 60 was admitted by them, but it was denied that these plots adjoin plot no.61. The encroachment over plot no.61 was also denied, as also the demolition of the boundary wall, although the lodging of the report with the police was admitted. Rest of the allegations were also refuted.
The parties went to trial on the following issues:-
R.S.A.No. 234 of 1989
-3-
4. Relief.
After appraisal of the evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit.
In appeal, the findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the first appellate Court which found that the respondent had raised the boundary wall over the plot in dispute in the year 1980 which was removed by the appellants in the year 1981 and made encroachment over it.
Hence, this appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. It may be mentioned that no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.
A reading of the impugned judgments reveal that there was evidence to suggest that the appellants had purchased two plots measuring 400 square yards, but in the report of the Local Commissioner, they were found in possession of 493 square yards. If the location of the plot in question is to be seen, then it is evident from the perusal of the impugned judgments that towards its east, there is a road; towards south, there is plot no.34, on western side is the plot no.60, whereas in the site plan which was appended to the sale deed vide which the appellants had purchased plot nos. 59 and 60, on eastern side, plot no.61 is shown and on western side, plot no.58 exists. There is no complaint of any encroachment by the owner of plot no.58 or any other plot holder adjoining the plots of the appellants. The ownership of the respondent over plot in question, i.e., plot no.61 has also been duly proved. Therefore, the only irresistible conclusion is that
R.S.A.No. 234 of 1989
-4-
the appellants had made encroachment over the plot owned by the respondent.
In any eventuality, the Courts below have recorded pure findings of fact and there is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgments.
No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration in this appeal, which is dismissed.
February 2,2010 “SCM”
( Mahesh Grover ) Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there was any substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal.
Nachhattar Singh
Veena Kumari
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
