This regular second appeal was dismissed in limine. The High Court held that no question of law or substantial question of law arose, as the findings of the first appellate court regarding ownership and possession were fully justified by evidence and not perverse or illegal.
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.4914 of 2010(O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
RSA No.4914 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 13, 2011
Ashok Sharma and another
.....Appellants
v.
Mohit Sharma and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Sandeep Panwar, Advocate for the appellants .
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 6.8.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Kaithal, allowing appeal filed by respondents-defendants against judgment and decree dated 22.10.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal, vide which suit filed by present appellants-plaintiffs was allowed.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below.
Briefly stated, appellants-plaitniffs filed this suit for a decree for possession of the land in dispute on the brief allegations that earlier they were Dohlidars and they had filed a suit against Gram Panchayat, who was owner of the land and the said suit was decreed and they were declared owners and thereafter they transferred rights in the property in dispute in favour of defendant no.3 by executing a sale deed in his favour, who later on executed sale deeds in favour of defendants no.1 and 2. However, later
-2-
RSA No.4914 of 2010(O&M)
on decree passed in favour of appellants-plaintiffs and against Gram Panchayat was set aside and hence, it is contended that status of appellantsplaintiffs that of Dohlidars has been restored and now by virtue of Haryana Bohlidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muqarridar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 2010, (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act') ownership rights of Dohlidar have been conferred and hence, it is contended that plaintiffs had become owners of the land in dispute.
Suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs was allowed by learned trial Court. However, on appeal being filed against the said judgment and decree by the respondents-defendants, the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court in favour of present appellants-plaintiffs was reversed.
As per own case of appellants-plaintiffs, they executed sale deed regarding land in dispute in favour of Chattarbhuj, defendant no.3 for a consideration of `1500/- and possession of the land in dispute was delivered to him by the present appellants-plaintiffs, who further sold the same to defendants no.1 and 2. Hence, respondents-defendants are continuing in possession of the land in dispute as owners by virtue of sale deed executed by present appellants-plaintiffs. Hence, even if argument of learned counsel for the appellants is accepted that earlier decree, which was in their favour regarding ownership and against the Gram Panchayat was set aside and now ownership rights have been conferred upon them by virtue of the Act, respondents-defendants are continuing in possession by virtue of sale deed for consideration executed in their favour by the present appellantsplaintiffs.
Hence, present appellants-plaintiffs are having no right to dispossess the respondents-defendants and seek a decree for possession
RSA No.4914 of 2010(O&M)
-3-
against them.
Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned first appellate Court in passing the impugned judgment and decree. Finding recorded by learned first appellate Court is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine.
13.9.2011
meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
Ashok Sharma and another
Mohit Sharma and others
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
