In a second appeal regarding a suit for possession based on a sale deed, the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose to warrant interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
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.
Manoj Kumar #1# 2013.10.10 16:09I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.3507 of 2012 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3507 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.09.2013
Parveen Kumar
....Appellant
Versus
Sunita Rani and Anr.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for for the appellant.
JASWANT SINGH, J
Defendant-Appellant is in second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents has been decreed vide judgment and decree dated 1.10.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nakodar and the findings affirmed in appeal vide judgment and decree dated 7.4.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar.
Plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for possession regarding the house in question constructed over an area of 8 marla by claiming its owners on the basis of a sale deed dated 13.7.1990, however, defendant forcibly took the possession of the same on 25.9.1997 and he
RSA No.3507 of 2012 (O&M)
#2#
was requested to hand over the possession but he refused resulting into filing of the suit.
On the other hand, defendnat-appellant resisted the claim of the plaitiff-respondents regarding title over the suit property and also denied the taking of forcible possession of the property in dispute on 25.9.1997. It is further alleged that an FIR was also registered by the plaintiff but the same has also been cancelled by the police being baseless.
Learned trial Court while deciding issue No.1, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs-respondents have lawfully purchased the suit property on the basis of the sale deed dated 13.7.1990 (Ex.P.1) proved by the testimony of Krishan Kant, Deed Writer (PW1) and Sunita Rani/plaintiff No.1 (PW4) and the issue was decided in their favour and further while deciding issue No.2, learned trial Court further came to the conclusion that there was no evidence on record that the defendants-appellants took forcible possession of the property in dispute on 25.9.1997. Still further, while deciding issues Nos.3 & 5 jointly, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence on record that the defendant is having any title to the suit property and decided both the issues in favour of the plaintiffsrespondents. Learned trial Court in para 24 of its judgment while deciding issue No.4 came to the conclusion that the suit of the plaintiffs is very well maintainable when they have successfully proved their title over the property in dispute. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiffs-
#3#
RSA No.3507 of 2012 (O&M)
respondents was decreed.
Learned first Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by learned trial Court.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper book carefully with his able assitance.
In the present case, it is not in dispute that the defendantappellant himself did not appear into the witness box and his attorney deposed on his behalf and the law is well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court that an Attorney cannot be a substitute to the party particularly when he is not conversant with the entire facts of the present case as has happened in the present case.
No doubt, learned trial Court while deciding issue No.2 came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs-respondents have not been able to prove that the defendant has taken the forcible possession of the suit property on 25.9.1997 but that will not make any difference as in the present case, the suit was instituted on 10.12.2004 and in a suit, which is based on title, there is no period of limitation and reference in this regard can be made to a judgment of this Court reported as Harnam Kaur and Ors. Vs. Malkiat singh and Ors, (1989) 1 RRR 475 and Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Indira Vs. Arumugam and Another, (1998) 1 Supreme Court Cases 614.
Even otherwise, it is not the case of the defendant-appellant that his possession has ripen into title by way of adverse possession and thus, in the opinion of this Court, no interference is required in the
RSA No.3507 of 2012 (O&M) #4#
concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below.
In view of the above, no law point much less any substantial question of law arises for determination, warranting
interference by this Court.
Dismissed. September 18,2013 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts holding the plaintiffs to be lawful owners and the defendants to have no title.
Whether the admission of evidence by the defendant's attorney instead of the defendant himself warrants interference by the High Court in an appeal based on title.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Harnam Kaur and Ors. Vs. Malkiat singh and OrsReferred¶27
Harnam Kaur and Ors. Vs. Malkiat singh and Ors, (1989) 1 RRR 475
Indira Vs. Arumugam and AnotherReferred¶27
Indira Vs. Arumugam and Another, (1998) 1 Supreme Court Cases 614
Parveen Kumar
Sunita Rani and Anr.
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
