On an appeal disputing a lower court decree in a suit for possession of land, a single-judge set aside dismissed a CPC suit where the plaintiff proved title via a 1979 sale deed while the defendants failed to prove a 1976 sale deed or possession.
The appeals were dismissed, leaving the judgment and decree of the courts below in force.
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.3285 of 1985
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3285 of 1985 Date of decision:16.07.2013
Raj Kumari & others
....Appellants
Versus
Krishan Kumar
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
None for the respondent.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL)
Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession pleading that suit land (i.e a plot measuring 159 square yards) was purchased from its previous owner vide registered sale deed dated 26.03.1979. The defendants, with an ulterior motive occupied the suit land and raised boundary wall. Despite repeated requests, defendantsappellants refused to hand-over the vacant possession of the suit land which necessitated the filing of the instant suit.
Upon notice,appellants-defendants filed written statement pleading that they were in actual possession of the suit land for the last more than 20 years and the entire area including suit land was purchased by them vide sale deed dated 06.04.1976 and at that
Kadian Savita 2013.07.20 13:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.3285 of 1985
2
time, three rooms, one kitchen and court yard were in existence.
On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the following
issues were framed by the trial Court:-
2. Whether the defendants are tres-passers over the disputed property? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD
4. Whether the suit is not within time? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiffs is estopped by his own acts and conduct to file the present suit? OPD.
6. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD
7. Whether the defendant No.1 is a bonafide purchaser of the land in dispute for valuable consideration? OPD.
8. Relief.
After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 07.01.1985, decreed the suit of the plaintiff observing that the plaintiff-respondent was able to show that he was having a better title than the appellants-respondents who were in possession over the plot as tress-passers.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 07.01.1985 of the trial Court. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the first Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 12.10.1985 affirming the findings of the trial Court.
RSA No.3285 of 1985
3
Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
following substantial question of law arises in this appeal:-
1. Whether judgment and decree dated 12.10.1985 passed by Ld. Distrcit Judge, Faridabad affirming judgment and decree dated 07.01.1985 passed by Ld. SJIC, Palwal is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and against facts and law and is liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble High Court?
2. Whether Ld. Courts below have misread Sale Deed dated 25.08.1984 (Exh.D-2) while decreeing the Suit of the respondent herein-Plaintiff?
3. Whether respondent herein-plaintiff have miserably failed to prove the property in dispute to be forming part of Khasra No.1231 and as such the Ld. Courts below have erred in law in decreeing the suit of respondent herein-plaintiff completely oblivious of and dehors this material aspect of the matter which has completely been overlooked?
4. Whether findings recorded by Ld. Courts below are based on no evidence and therefore, perverse?
5. Whether sale deed dated 26.03.1979 (Ex.P1) relates to the suit property and whether in the lights of the facts and circumstaces proved on records, the same alone was sufficient enough to decree the suit?
6. Whether Ld. Courts below have erred in law in decreeing the suit of the respondent herein-plaintiff simply in the absence of proof of title of the appellants herein-defendants?”
In support of his case, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the plaintiff-respondent has failed to
RSA No.3285 of 1985
4
prove that the property in dispute is forming part of Khasra No.1231 and thus, the courts below have erred in law in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent, ignoring the material aspect of the matter and thus, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below being perversed are liable to be set aside.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record with his help.
A perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below would show that both the Court below have recorded concurrent findings that the plaintiff-respondent has proved the sale deed dated 26.03.1979 executed in his favour by the previous owner of the suit land whereas the appellants who have set up their title over the suit land on the basis of the sale deed dated 06.04.1976 which they have failed to prove.
It may further be noticed that while affirming the findings of the trial Court, the first Appellate Court held that the property in suit has been identified with the property purchased by the plaintiffrespondent. The Courts below have further found that title of the suit land has been legally transferred in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.
Not only this, counsel for the appellants could not dispute before this Court that the appellants have not proved the sale deed dated 06.04.1976 by producing Jai Parkash alleged owner of the suit land from whom the appellants have allegedly purchased the suit property.
It may further be noticed that appellants have not led any
RSA No.3285 of 1985
5
evidence to prove their possession over the suit land for the last more than 20 years as stated by them.
In this view of the matter, no fault can be found in the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the appellantsdefendants have failed to prove the sale deed dated 06.04.1976 in their favour and the long possession.
No substantial question of law arises as argued before
this Court.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
July 16, 2013 savita
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the findings of the courts below—that the plaintiff-respondent proved title to the land while the appellants failed to prove their sale deed or long possession—are perverse or based on no evid
Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below decreeing the suit are illegal, arbitrary, or liable to be set aside.
Raj Kumari & others
Krishan Kumar
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
