In a second appeal regarding a civil suit for correction of land area in Jamabandi, the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose. The court affirmed the lower courts' findings on the legality of the sale deeds and area correction, stating findings of fact were binding.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.M. No. 2500-C of 2012 & RSA No. 951 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.2.2012.
Harchand Singh
--Appellant
Versus
Jagdish Pal Singh & others
--Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:Mr. D.S. Gurna, Advocate for the appellant.
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J
C.M. No. 2500-C of 2012
This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 13 days
in filing the appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, same is allowed. Delay of 13 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
RSA No. 951 of 2012 (O&M)
The appellant-defendant is in second appeal before this Court.
The plaintiff filed a suit in a representative capacity seeking a declaration that the area in respect of Khasra No.1677 comprised in Khasra No.287, Khatoni No.541, Khasra No.1677/2/6 min. is 1B-4B-6B and not 6B-4B-6B as mentioned in the Jamabandi. It was further prayed that the two sale deeds executed by defendant Harchand Singh for land measuring 3B-2B-3B each out of 6B-4B-6B from Khasra No.1677/2/6 in favour of his son are illegal, void and fraudulent and not binding upon the true owners i.e. Shamlat Patti Sangat and accordingly, correction of Jamabandi so as to
RSA No. 951 of 2012 (O&M) -2-
record the area of Khasra No.1677/2/6 as 1B-4B-6B was prayed. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs belong to Patti Sangat of village Dad. The plaintiffs also owned land in this Patti and the land is recorded as Shamlat Patti Sangat. The area comprised in Khasra No.1677 is fairly large, comprised of 57B-15B-9B and such area is still joint the same having not been partitioned. Land measuring 1B-4B-6B comprised in Khewat No.287, Khatoni No.541, Khasra No.1677/2/6 min. was recorded as being cultivated by defendant Harchand Singh. It was pleaded that Harchand Singh in collusion with the Patwari had got such area changed as 6B-4B-6B in place of 1B-4B-6B. There was no jurisdiction with the Patwari to make a change in the entry. Harchand Singh, thereafter had got executed two sale deeds in favour of the son i.e. sale deed no.35809 registered on 10.11.1994 and sale deed no.25757 dated 9.11.1994 for land measuring 3B-2B-3B each. Both the aforementioned sale deeds were stated to be illegal and were not binding on the proprietors of the Patti Sangat. It is against such factual backdrop that the suit had been instituted.
Defendants no.1, 3 and 4 were proceeded ex-parte and only defendant no.2 contested the suit. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the suit. On merits, it was stated that Harchand Singh, defendant no.1, father of defendant no.2 was the owner in possession of land measuring 6B-4B-6B. Harchand Singh, defendant no.1 had executed two sale deeds in question for a consideration of Rs.1,76,000/each. It was stated that the plaintiffs had no concern with the suit land and the same had been filed with a malafide intention just to grab the suit property vested with defendant no.2. The fact of Harchand Singh defendant having colluded with the Patwari as regards change of area was denied.
-3-
RSA No. 951 of 2012 (O&M)
Upon the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the
following issues:-
The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and held the area of Khasra No.1677/2/6 min. to be 1B-4B-6B and not 6B-4B6B as mentioned in Jamabandi and further held both the sale deeds in question to be null and void. Defendant-appellant Harchand singh preferred a civil appeal and the First Appellate Court vide judgement dated 12.10.2011 has upheld the judgement and decree of the Trial Court and has dismissed the appeal.
I have heard Mr. D.S. Gurna, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
Learned counsel would contend that the courts below have proceeded on a mis-appreciation and misreading of the evidence and as such the findings are perverse.
RSA No. 951 of 2012 (O&M) -4-
The Trial Court has upon due appreciation of evidence recorded findings to the effect that the area of Khasra No.1677/2/6 min. of land Shamlat Patti Sangat is in fact 1B-4B-6B. In this regard the testimony of Mohan lal, PW-5, Record Keeper has been noticed, who had placed on record the Parth Sarkar Jamabandi register for the year 1984-1985 and had proved on record a copy thereof as Ex.PW-3/1. Even Ujaggar Singh, Sadar Kanungo, office of Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana had appeared as PW-2 and duly proved that a complaint dated 15.6.1996 had been moved by the plaintiff-respondent Jagdish Pal Singh and the same had been registered at Sr. No.803-SK and had proved on record the same as Ex.PW-1/1. Ujagar Singh, Sadar Kanungo had deposed in clear terms that in pursuance to such complaint an inquiry had been marked and got conducted by the District Revenue Officer and in such inquiry it had been found that the actual area of Khasra No.1677/2/6 min. is 1B-4B-6B and that there had been an interpolation of area of 6B-4B-6B had been entered in the Fard Patwar in the Jamabandi for the year 1984-85 of village Dad. Such findings of fact stand affirmed by virtue of the dismissal of the civil appeal filed by the defendant-appellant by the First Appellate Court. Such findings would be binding on this Court while in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel has not been able to show any perversity in the same.
Learned counsel would vehemently argue that the suit itself was not maintainable as it had been filed in a representative capacity, whereas the plaintiffs-respondents, who were not even party to the sale deeds had no right and concern with the suit property. It was contended that the property in dispute belong to the Patti Sangat. Such contention is being
RSA No. 951 of 2012 (O&M) -5-
noticed just to be rejected. Jagdish Pal Singh, plaintiff-respondent while appearing as PW-6 had clearly deposed that he as also his brother Dalwinder Singh belong to Patti Sangat and their land was also falling in such Patti. Accordingly, the plaintiff-respondent certainly had a common interest in so far as the suit property is concerned. That apart, admittedly, a separate application had been filed seeking permission to file the suit in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 Code of Civil Procedure and the same had been allowed vide order dated 27.4.2006 passed by the Trial Court. Such order had never been challenged at the hands of the present appellant.
For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in the present second appeal as it does not raise any question of law much less a substantial question of law.
The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE
27.2.2012. lucky
Whether to be reported? No.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal raises a substantial question of law warranting interference despite alleged perversity in facts?
Whether the plaintiff had locus standi and valid cause of action in a suit for correction of Jamabandi area?
Whether the findings regarding area interpolation and sale deed validity are perverse?
Harchand Singh
Jagdish Pal Singh
Tejinder Singh Dhin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
