Dismissed

Union of India and Ors. v. Pooja Machine Pvt. Ltd.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Sept 2014RSA/1732/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal challenging a decree for possession based on statutory demarcation, the High Court rejected the appellant's claim of adverse possession and upheld the concurrent findings of the courts below, dismissing the appeal for lack of merit.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgment and decree directing the defendant to deliver possession.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Pooja Machine Pvt. Ltd. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

R.S.A. No.1732 of 2014

¶3

.....

¶4

Date of decision:16.9.2014

¶5

Union of India and others

¶6

.....Appellants

¶7

¶8

Pooja Machine Pvt. Ltd.

¶9

.....Respondent

¶10

Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶11

.....

¶12

Present: Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

¶13

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶14

This regular second appeal has been filed by Union of India etc.-appellants/defendants against Pooja Machine Pvt. Ltd.-respondent/ plaintiff challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.9.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Pathankot, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pathankot has been dismissed.

¶15

It is mainly stated in the appeal that the judgments and decrees

¶16

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR passed by the first appellate Court and the lower Court are against law and 2014.09.29 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

R.S.A. No.1732 of 2014

¶18

[2]

¶19

facts, certain facts, which are not only relevant but pertinent had been completely removed and has resulted miscarriage of justice to the appellant. It is stated that it is fully proved on the file that the report of the Local Commissioner was not correct as no proper demarcation was taken from the adjoining khasra number and the demarcation was not carried out from any `pacca' point.

¶20

I have heard leaned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the record.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that M/s Pooja Machine Private Limited filed suit for possession of land measuring 6 Marlas described in the site plan attached with the suit by letters ABCD in red colour as per report of the Local Commissioner being eastern part of Khasra No.605, 200 (5 Kanals 1 Marla) in Khewat No.30, Khatoni No.41 and suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering, in any manner, in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the remaining land.

¶22

The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The plaintiff is owner in possession of the land measuring 5 Kanals 1 Marla as fully described in the suit. The defendants have no right, title or concern with the suit land and they are strangers. The defendants have encroached upon the land measuring 6 Marlas out of the land measuring 5 Kanals 1 Marla in its eastern part found by the Local Commissioner. The plaintiff got the demarcation of the land for the satisfaction of the defendants. The plaintiff requested the defendants to hand over the possession of encroached area and not to interfere in its

¶23

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR possession. 2014.09.29 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

R.S.A. No.1732 of 2014

¶25

[3]

¶26

On the other hand, upon notice, the defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement raising preliminary objections that the suit is false, without merits and is legally not maintainable. The defendants are in possession of the land for the last more than 12 years. The possession of the defendants is peaceful, continuous, hostile to the knowledge of the plaintiff, as such the defendants have become owners by way of adverse possession. The suit is time barred. It is further stated that the report of the Local Commissioner is wrong and collusive. The defendants have raised boundary wall after getting the land demarcated and no part of the land of the plaintiff has been encroached upon. The defendants are in possession of the property and they have raised boundary wall.

¶27

After framing of the issues, both the parties examined the witnesses. The Court held that it is admitted fact between the parties that the plaintiff is owner of the property. The plaintiff has examined PW-2 Narinder Kumar, Office Kanungo who has proved the demarcation report. The witness was cross-examined at length, but nothing came on record to impeach the credibility of the witness. His report Ex.P.4 shows that there is an encroachment of 6 Marlas of the property by the defendants. The defendants' witness DW-1 Amritha Raj has specifically stated in the crossexamination that the area of the army land adjoins the property of the plaintiff. This witness has further admitted in her cross-examination that as per their record, demarcation was conducted in respect of disputed land by the order of the Court. This witness has further admitted that at the time of

¶28

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR demarcation, the representative of the defence Estate Officer was present. 2014.09.29 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶29

R.S.A. No.1732 of 2014 [4]

¶30

This witness further admitted that their authorities did not file any objections against the demarcation report. The Court held that when the demarcation report has not been objected, then it is presumed to have been admitted. Further more, from the evidence on record, I find that when the defendants are claiming ownership on the basis of adverse possession, it means that they are admitting the title/ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land.

¶31

As regards the fact of adverse possession, one of the essential ingredients is that possession was hostile to the knowledge of the owner and amounted to denial of his title to the property claimed. The mere peaceful, and continuous possession is not enough to prove the adverse possession. The Court held that the defendants have failed to prove the adverse possession also.

¶32

The findings given by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pathankot vide judgment dated 21.12.2010 and the reasoning given by the first appellate Court of District Judge, Pathankot in judgment and decree dated 16.9.2013 are correct and as per law. At the time of arguments, nothing has been pointed out as to how these judgments are perverse. What material evidence has not been discussed by the Courts below or what material evidence has been misread. There is nothing on the record as to what illegality has been committed by the Courts below. Both the Courts below have given the concurrent findings of fact and no substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Both the judgments and decrees being correct and as per law do not require any HARPAL SINGH PARMAR interference from this Court and the same are upheld. 2014.09.29 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶33

R.S.A. No.1732 of 2014

¶34

[5]

¶35

Finding no merit in the present regular second appeal, the same

¶36

is dismissed.

¶37

September 16, 2014.

¶38

(Inderjit Singh) Judge

¶39

hsp

¶40

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.29 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Union of India and Ors. v. Pooja Machine Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Pooja Machine Pvt. Ltd.

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

Prem Singh and Ors. Vs Bal Kishan and Ors.

Rajesh Vs State of Haryana

(O&M) United India Insurance Co. Limited Vs Amarjit Singh and Another

Santa Singh etc. Vs Pb. State

Jai Singh. Vs Haryana State.

Asha Rani Vs State of Punjab & Ors.