Dismissed

Subeg Singh v. Manjit Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Mar 2012RSA/400/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal concerning a suit for permanent injunction regarding disputed land shares between private parties and the Central Government, the High Court upheld the dismissal of the appeal. The judge found no reason to interfere with the lower courts' determination that evidence on possession was inconclusive and no substantial question of law arose.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; no relief granted.

Subeg Singh Vs Manjit Singh and Ors. — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

RSA No.400 of 2004(O&M) Date of Decision: 23.3.2012.

Subeg Singh

--Appellant

Versus

Manjit Singh and others

¶7

--Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶9

Present:Ms. Upasana Dhawan, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

¶11

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J

¶12

The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below.

¶13

Briefly noticed, a suit for perpetual injunction was filed by the plaintiffs restraining defendants no.1 and 2 from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs as also proforma defendant no.4 over the suit land. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs as also proforma defendants were owners in possession over the land in dispute. The Central Govt. was owner to the extent of 1/6^th share therein and the same was being cultivated by the plaintiffs and proforma defendants. It was pleaded that defendants no.1 and 2 were threatening to interfere in their possession and accordingly the suit had been filed.

¶14

Defendants no.1 and 2 filed a written statement stating that defendant no.1 had purchased 12 kanals 13 marlas of land i.e from the 1/6^th share of the Central Govt. out of land measuring 76 kanals on 16.3.1995 in an open auction and a sale certificate had also been issued in his name on 28.10.1997. Accordingly, defendant no.1 had become co-sharer in joint possession with the others in the suit land. Accordingly, it was stated that

¶15

RSA No.400 of 2004(O&M)

¶16

-2-

¶17

there was no question of their entering into forcible possession as they were already co-sharers in joint possession.

¶18

The Trial Court having heard respective counsel for the parties and having scanned the evidence adduced on record, dismissed the suit. Even the civil appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant Subeg Singh has been dismissed vide impugned judgement dated 12.9.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala.

¶19

I have heard Ms. Upasana Dhawan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant at length.

¶20

Learned counsel would argue that the findings of the courts below are perverse and based on a misreading and mis-appreciation of evidence.

¶21

In the Fard Jamabandi for the year 1992-1993 the present appellant Subeg Singh had been recorded as owner in possession to the extent of 1/4^th share in the suit land and the other plaintiffs along with the proforma defendant no.4 have been recorded as owners in possession to the extent of 1/4^th share. All the plaintiffs along with proforma defendant no.4 have been recorded as tenants over the share of the Central Govt. in the column of cultivation in the Fard Jamabandi. The column of rent in such Jamabandi (Ex.P-1) was vacant. The averments made by the plaintiffs in the plaint were in consonance with the entries made in the column of cultivation in the Fard Jamabandi (Ex.P-1). However, Pw-1 Subeg Singh, the present appellant while appearing in the witness box stated that the entire suit land is in their ownership and that the Central Govt. does now own any land in the suit land. The appellant denied being a tenant and stated that no share of the Central Govt. land had been taken on lease or

¶22

RSA No.400 of 2004(O&M)

¶23

-3-

¶24

share of the crop. The oral testimony of the plaintiff-appellant was in complete conflict with the entry in the column of cultivation in the Fard Jamabandi (Ex.P-1). Ex.D-1 is the sale certificate in favour of Manjit Singh, defendant, whereby he had purchased 12 kanals 13 marlas of the suit land out of the suit land i.e share of the Central Govt. in an open auction on 16.3.1995.

¶25

The concurrent finding recorded by the courts below is to the effect that no convincing and cogent evidence had been adduced so as to prove as to who is in possession over the share of the Central Govt. over the suit land and to what extent. The courts below have held that the plaintiffs have not been able to prove their exclusive possession of the share of the Central Govt. over the suit land which is shared by the contesting defendants. Accordingly, a finding of fact has been returned by the courts below to the effect that the plaintiffs cannot be held to be in exclusive possession of the entire piece of the suit land. Accordingly, the plaintiffs were held not entitled to the injunction as prayed for.

¶26

The impugned judgements and decrees by the courts below while denying the relief of injunction to the plaintiff/present appellant are based on due appreciation of evidence produced on record. The same do not warrant any interference as I do not hold the findings to be perverse.

¶27

No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present second appeal. The appeal, accordingly, is dismissed.

¶28

Appeal dismissed.

¶29

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE

¶30

23.3.2012. lucky

¶31

Whether to be reported? No.

Subeg Singh v. Manjit Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subeg Singh v. Manjit Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ved Singh and Ors. Vs Munni and Anr.

Executive Officer and Another Vs Parveen Kumar and Others

Executive Officer and Another Vs Ishwar Chand

Nathu Ram Vs Nidhi Sanduja

Harvidner Singh Vs M/S Jai Lakshmi Trading Co.

Joginder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.