High Court disposed of a second appeal in a property dispute. The court upheld the lower courts' findings regarding an unproven exchange deed and cultivation possession, dismissing the appeal as no substantial question of law arose.
Second appeal dismissed; lower court findings upheld.
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.1116 of 2012 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1116 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:07.03.2012
Satbir and others
......Appellants
Vs.
Devender Singh and another
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr. Pardeep Chahar, Advocate for the appellants.
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.
CM No.2996-C of 2012:
This is an application seeking 154 days delay in re-filing the instant second appeal. The application is duly supported by an affidavit.
In view of the reasons stated in the application, prayer is allowed . Delay of 154 days in re-filing the instant second appeal is condoned.
RSA No.1116 of 2012:
The defendants/appellants are in second appeal before this
Court.
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful ownership and possession of the suit property. Defendants while contesting the suit took up
-2-
RSA No.1116 of 2012 (O&M)
a two folds plea: firstly, it was stated that they were in adverse possession of the suit property since the last more than 30 years. Secondly, a plea was raised that there had been an exchange between the defendants and the father of the plaintiff as regards the suit property and an exchange deed dated 15.06.1992 had been executed in regard thereto.
Upon having heard the respective parties and having scanned the evidence led on record, the trial Court vide judgment dated 18.11.2010, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction and restrained the defendants from interfering in the peaceful cultivating possession as regards the suit land. Aggrieved of the same, the defendants/appellants preferred a civil appeal and vide judgment dated 22.07.2011, the first appellate Court has dismissed the appeal thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
Mr. Pardeep Chahar, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants.
It was the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Courts below have erred in discarding the exchange deed dated 15.06.1992, which has been executed in between the father of the plaintiff/respondent and the defendants/appellants. Still further, learned counsel would argue that the findings of the Courts below as regard the plaintiff/respondent being in cultivating possession of the suit land, are perverse and based on a mis-reading and mis-appreciation of evidence.
There would be no dispute as regards the proposition that a presumption of truth is attached to the revenue entries. The Courts below while returning concurrent findings as regards the possession of the plaintiff on the suit land had taken into account relevant revenue record i.e.
RSA No.1116 of 2012 (O&M)
-3-
jamabandi for the year 2003-04, Exhibit P-1 as also khasra girdawaris, Exhibit P-5, Exhibit P-6 and Exhibit P-7 for the year 1999 onwards till the year 2010. No evidence had been led in rebuttal by the defendants/appellants.
Even the plea raised by the defendants/appellants as regards they being in adverse possession over the suit land for a period in access of 30 years prior to the filing of the suit is untenable. On the one hand, a plea of adverse possession had been raised and on the other hand, an exchange deed dated 15.06.1992 relating to the suit land allegedly entered into between the father of the plaintiff/respondent and the defendants has also been set up. There is no pleading on record to the effect that under what circumstances and when and how the defendants/appellants entered into possession of the suit land which was adverse, open and hostile to the true owner. Even the witnesses, DW1 to DW8 have not corroborated in their oral testimony such plea towards adverse possession of the defendants/appellants over the suit land.
The exchange deed, Exhibit D-6 allegedly executed on 15.06.1992 has been held by the trial Court to be not proved on the file. Even otherwise, such alleged exchange deed dated 15.06.1992 does not find any reflection in the revenue record and is as such demonstrative of the fact that it was never acted upon.
The finding of fact recorded by the Courts below would be binding on the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel has not been able to show as to how the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse.
RSA No.1116 of 2012 (O&M)
-4-
The present second appeal must accordingly fail as it does not
raise any question of law much less substantial question of law.
Appeal dismissed .
March 07, 2012 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) harjeet JUDGE
Note: Whether to be reported? No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the findings of the lower courts regarding the exchange deed and cultivation possession are perverse under Section 100 CPC.
Whether the plea of adverse possession is tenable given the lack of corroboration and revenue record reflection.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Satbir and others
Devender Singh and another
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
