單Judge allowed a petition for recasting issues in a suit for declaration regarding land ownership. The court directed framing of new issues and permitted the petitioner to summon revenue records.
Application partly allowed; petition allowed to recast issues and permitted to summon original records.
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.
CR No. 3397 of 2011
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No. 3397 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: December 4, 2012
Chanan Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Sudarshan Kumar and another
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mrs. , Vanita Sapra Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate, the respondents.
A.N. JINDAL, J. (Oral)
The order dated 5.3.2011, vide which two applications of the petitioner, one for recasting of issues and the other for production of original documents were dismissed, is under challenge.
The plaintiff/petitioner had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is co-owner of the land measuring 7 kanal 4 marla and in exclusive possession of the same and the sale deed dated 27.11.2007 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 being without right or authority is null and void and is liable to be ignored.
The defendants have refuted all the allegations and further claimed that defendant No.2 is bonafide purchaser for consideration of the land in dispute without notice.
Thus, from the pleadings of the parties the court omitted to frame the following issues:-
“Whether the plaintiff is co-owner in exclusive possession of
CR No. 3397 of 2011
2
Khata No. 126/194, Khasra No. 22//18/7-4 and the sale deed dated 27.11.2007 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal, null and void and without authority and the same has been obtained by tampering with the revenue record with the collusion of revenue officials?”
However, both the parties do not dispute framing of proposed
issue No. 8, in place of issue No. 8, as proposed by the petitioner, in addition to other issues. Similarly, the parties do not dispute if issue No. 7, as proposed by the plaintiff with regard to the question of bonafide purchaser, is framed. It is also not disputed that onus of issue No. 7 and 8 would remain upon defendants and the plaintiff respectively.
On examination of the application filed by the petitioner, it transpires that there is no requirement of framing of issues No. 6, 9 and 10. As regards, proposed issue No.3, such issue need not be framed when there is already issue No. 8 covering the subject matter i.e. whether the entry in the revenue record was illegal.
As regards, the the application moved by the petitioner for production of original documents is concerned, the petitioner would be at liberty to summon the record to prove if there is any over-writing or wrong entry in the revenue record.
Resultantly, this petition is partly allowed in the aforesaid
terms.
December 4, 2012 prem
(A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court ought to frame issues Nos. 3, 6, 9 and 10 in the pending suit for declaration regarding property ownership and validity of sale deed?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to summon original revenue records to prove over-writing or wrong entries?
Chanan Singh
Sudarshan Kumar
another
A.N. JINDAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
