Dismissed

Hari Krishan v. Hukam Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Nov 2011CR/4844/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision, the single judge dismissed the petition challenging a decree for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Performance Act. The court held that three boundaries matched between the sale deed and site plan, finding no substantial question of law arising for adjudication at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision petition dismissed; original decree upheld.

Hari Krishan Vs Hukam Singh — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

C.R. No. 4844 of 2011(O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No. 4844 of 2011(O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: 07.11.2011

Hari Krishan

.... Petitioner

Versus

Hukam Singh

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶12

Present : Mr. Aashish Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner

¶13

Mr. Sarabjeet Singh Khaira, Advocate for the respondent

¶14

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶17

RITU BAHRI J. (ORAL)

¶18

This Civil Revision petition has been filed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2009 (Annexure P-1) vide which learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Gohana has decreed the suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Performance Act.

¶19

The plaintiff has filed a suit No. 52/1/2005 that he is recorded owner of a plot/gher shown with ABCD as per the site plan situated within the abadi deh of village Bichpari, Tehsil Gohana District Sonepat. As per the sale deed No. 2342 dated 8.1.1993, the possession of the above said plot had been delivered to the plaintiff

¶20

C.R. No. 4844 of 2011(O&M)

¶21

¶22

and since then the plaintiff was using the same for domestic purposes peacefully and without any interference. On 31.1.2005, the defendant forcibly occupied some portion of the land shown with CDEF. The defendant denied the execution of sale deed No. 4342 dated 08.01.1993. It is alleged that no possession was delivered to the plaintiff nor any sale deed has been executed. The defendant and his brother are owners in possession of Khewat No. 387/361, Khatoni No. 433, Khasra No. 701 measuring 0 Kanal 19 Marla vide mutation No. 1268 situated in the revenue estate of village Bichpari to the extent of 4/9 share. The suit land which is shown by the plaintiff was part of Khasra No. 701 measuring 0 Kanal 19 Marla in Khewat No. 387/433 and the suit land is not known by name.

¶23

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for adjudication :-

¶24

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to deliver the vacant

¶25

possessio of the plot in dispute on the grounds mentioned i the plaint shown with ABCD letters in the site plan?

¶26

Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable/

¶27

Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material

¶28

facts from the Court?

¶29

Whether t he suit of the plaintiff is time barred.

¶30

Relief

¶31

The trial Court has returned a finding that the plaintiff became owner in possession of the suit property vide sale deed Ex. PW-1/A and the possession of the suit land was given immediately after the execution of the sale deed. The suit of the plaintiff has been

¶32

C.R. No. 4844 of 2011(O&M)

¶33

¶34

decreed with the direction to the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within three months failing which the plaintiff shall be entitled to take possession of the suit property by way of filing the execution petition on the expenses of the defendant.

¶35

Aggrieved against the said judgment, the present civil revision has been filed.

¶36

Mr. Aashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued that the judgment passed by the trial Court is likely to be set aside as the findings of the trial Court that the suit property Ex. PW1/A does not match with the site plan Ex. PW3/A. The identification of the property is in dispute, therefore, decree can not be passed in favour of the plaintiff. He has referred to a judgment passed by this Court in Smt. Juhri vs. Sarfraj Hussain, 2010(1) Latest Judicial Reports 482 to contend that in a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, if the plaintiff did not specify portion or get the same demarcated on which encroachment had been made, the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable. No other point has been argued by counsel for the petitioner as far as the judgment in Smt. Juhri's case (supra) is concerned the facts of this judgment will not apply to the facts of the present case.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the plaintiff had not disclosed in the plaint that earlier suit was filed qua the same land that had been dismissed by the trial Court. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that no demarcation was made for seeking the possession, however, in the present case, plaintiff has led evidence by producing PW-1 Ram Kunwar Assistant Clerk

¶38

C.R. No. 4844 of 2011(O&M)

¶39

¶40

from the office of Assistant Registrar who has stepped into witness box and proved the execution of the sale deed Ex. PW-1/A. He has admitted that as per the record the sale deed has been executed. PW-2 Bimla Devi Clerk from the office of SDO (Civil) Gohana has has proved the extract of dispatch register which EX. PW-2/A. She has admitted that the complaint had been received from the plaintiff and the same was sent to the DSP for inquiry in the matter. PW-3 Sushil Kumar drafts man has stepped into witness box and proved the site plan Ex. PW-3/A. He has also admitted that he has seen the document of title of the plaintiff and visited the spot. He has stated that number of Khasra is not mentioned in the sale deed. PW-4 Chander Bhan corroborated the testimony of PW-4. He has also identified his signature on the document Ex. PW-1/A. The objection raised by the plaintiff is that the boundaries of the property in the sale deed are not matching with the site plan Ex. PW-3/A. The finding is that three boundaries are matching while examining both the documents. The sale deed and site plan have been filed in this Court by the appellant.

¶41

As per the sale deed dated 08.01.1993 boundaries in the site plan and sale deed do not differ. As per the sale deed the plot is of 120 Sq. yards i.e. 60 feet x 18 feet. There is a school building on the east side, on the west side there is a gali, on the south side there is a house of Hari Kishan and in the north side there is house of Jagidsh. As per the site plan, three boundaries which relate to the school gali and house of Jagidsh are identical. The findings recorded by the trial Court does not require any interference at the appellate stage. The fact that complaint had been registered against the

¶42

C.R. No. 4844 of 2011(O&M)

¶43

¶44

defendant stand affirmed by Bimla Devi Clerk from the office of SDO

¶45

(Civil) Gohana.

¶46

No substantial question of law arises for adjudication by

¶47

this Court.

¶48

Civil Revision is dismissed.

¶49

(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE

¶50

07.11.2011 reena

Hari Krishan v. Hukam Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Krishan v. Hukam Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Lal Vs Bimla Devi & Ors.

Angrej Kaur and Ors. Vs Darshan Singh and Ors.

Jaspal Singh and Anr. Vs SBI and Anr.

Gian Singh and Ors. Vs Nirmal Singh and Ors.

Mange Ram Vs Lalu

Raja Ram and Anr. Vs Arun Kumar and Ors.