This Regular Second Appeal regarding a suit for possession was dismissed. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the trial and lower appellate courts had correctly interpreted the evidence and decreed in favour of the plaintiff.
Regular Second Appeal dismissed; judgment of lower appellate and trial courts affirmed.
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.
R.S.A. No. 4015 of 2010 (O&M)
[ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 4015 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 1,2011
Didar Singh ........................................... Appellant
versus
Balbir Singh ........................................ Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri
Present: Mr. G.S.Nagra, Advocate for the appellant.
RITU BAHRI, J.
This Regular Second Appeal is against the judgment dated 24.7.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar.
The plaintiff-Balbir Singh had filed Civil RBT Suit No. 973 of 2003 for possession in respect of the land as detailed in the plaint as per jamabandi for the year 20002001, situated at Village Othian, Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar. Plaintiff claimed that he was one of the co-sharer in the suit property which was earlier owned by his father Sarup Singh. After the death of Sarup Singh the inheritance
R.S.A. No. 4015 of 2010 (O&M) [ 2 ]
devolved upon plaintiff and other legal representatives namely Harbans Kaur widow, Kirpal Singh son, Kulwinder Kaur and Kuljit daughters and mutation No.3472 was sanctioned accordingly. The defendant has no title or interest in the property but has taken forcible possession of the suit property. He is a trespasser. Plaintiff being the owner and co-sharer was entitled to possession of the same. The plaintiff's allegation is that defendant alleged that he has taken the property in exchange from the plaintiff. No exchange has taken place nor any land was given to the defendant in exchange.
The defendant took the plea that he is in possession of the suit land since 1967. The plaintiff exchanged this land with the defendant but the mutation was not sanctioned. Plaintiff is neither owner nor co-sharer in the suit property. Sarup Singh had died issueless and mutation No. 3472 is illegal, null and void.
The trial Court framed the following issues:-
1)Whether the suit property is ownership of the
2)Whether the plaintiff has took the forcible possession of the suit property from the plaintiff about one year back without having any right title or interest? OPP
R.S.A. No. 4015 of 2010 (O&M) [ 3 ]
of the suit property by way of adverse possession as alleged? OPP
After framing the issues the trial Court came to a conclusion that defendant had led no evidence to prove that he had been in possession of the suit land since 1967. As per the revenue record, plaintiff was in possession upto 2001 and the suit filed in January 2003 is well within limitation. As per Jamabandi (Ex.P1) the plaintiff has been able to prove that the ownership of the land vests in him. After the death of his father Sarup Singh, mutation No. 3472 has been sanctioned in favour of all the legal representatives of Sarup Singh. The defendant was not able to prove that Sarup Singh and Anoop Singh, who were co-sharers of the suit land, had
R.S.A. No. 4015 of 2010 (O&M) [ 4 ]
exchanged the same with the land of the defendant in the year 1967. As per the jamabandi (Ex.P1) of the year 20002001 the land was owned by Anoop Singh and Sarup Singh. Vide mutation No. 3472 inheritance of Sarup Singh devloved upon the plaintiff, his mother, brothers Satnam Singh and Kirpal Singh and sisters Kulwinder Kaur and Kuljit Kaur. Similarly, after the death of Anoop Singh, his property devolved upon his widow Swaran Kuar, daughters Parkash Kaur and Lakhwinder Kaur and son Lakhbir Singh vide mutation No.3428. As per jamabandi of 2000-2001 all the owners have been shown to be in cultivating possession of the suit property. This issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff and the suit for possession in respect of the land was decreed.
While affirming the judgment of the trial Court, the appellate court has also given a finding that the plea of adverse possession by the defendant was not available as he has been shown in illegal possession of the suit land in the jamabandi for the year 2005-2006. In order to claim adverse and hostile possession over the land, a period of more than 12 years is required as hostile possession. The defendant has also taken the plea of ownership by way of exchange. The plea of ownership demolishes the plea of adverse possession. The jamabandi (Ex.P1) and mutations No. 3472 and 3428 have not been rebutted by way of any
R.S.A. No. 4015 of 2010 (O&M) [ 5 ] oral or documentary evidence.
No substantial question of law arises for
adjudication by this Court.
The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
( RITU BAHRI ) 1.11.2011 JUDGE rupi
Didar Singh
Balbir Singh
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
