Dismissed

Kanwar Varinder Singh Sandhar v. Veera Wali

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Nov 2014RSA/1851/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a second appeal in a suit for possession and damages regarding land encroachment. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings of lower courts that the appellant failed to prove the boundaries of the property and the fact of encroachment due to witness testimony deficiencies.

What did the court decide?

None. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.

Kanwar Varinder Singh Sandhar Vs Veera Wali — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

RSA No.1851 of 2013 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.1851 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.11.2014

¶5

Kanwar Varinder Singh Sandhar

¶6

... Appellant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Veera Wali and another

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶11

Present:Mr. H.S.Thiara, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

AMIT RAWAL J

¶13

Plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for possession of land shown red in the site plan, which is part of house bearing No.618-L, Model Town, Jalandhar City, by removing the malba which is measuring 34’-6”x17’-10” and bounded as under:-

¶14

North : Property of the plaintiff South : Property of others East : Property of the plaintiff West : Property of Shri Bhim Sen

¶15

and for recovery of ` 12,000/- by way of damages on account of use and occupation on the premise that the disputed property depicted in red and green colour was owned by him. Being NRI when he returned back from U.K. found that defendant had encroached upon

¶16

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.05 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶17

RSA No.1851 of 2013 (O&M)

¶18

¶19

the area measuring 34’-6” x 17’-10” of the house bearing No.618-L, Model Town, Jalandhar. Defendant raised construction of boundary wall of the said area by causing aforementioned encroachment.

¶20

In the written statement, defendant stated that property was allotted to him by Tehsildar Sales-cum-Managing Officer, Punjab vide order dated 29.10.1980 and thus, he became owner in possession of the disputed property on the basis of allotment letter. It was further stated that defendant No.1 is also owner in possession of the adjoining property measuring 4 marlas.

¶21

The plaintiff in support of his case examined as many as 3 witnesses. Besides examining himself as PW1, the plaintiff got examined PW2-B.K.Singhal and PW3-Ashok Kumar. In order to rebut evidence, defendant examined as many as 2 witnesses and proved on record certain documents. The trial Court noticed testimony of PW2-B.K.Singhal who in cross examination admitted that he did not measure the property of defendant, despite order of the Court. He further conceded that he did not take any document from the Court. The trial Court also found that PW3 –Ashok Kumar, Junior Assistant though proved on record the register maintained by the department regarding allotment of plot No.618-L, Model Town, Jalandhar City, but in cross-examination, could not tell the exact location of the property much less even the boundaries of the property were also not mentioned in the site plan. Since appellant

¶22

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.05 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶23

RSA No.1851 of 2013 (O&M)

¶24

¶25

failed to prove the boundaries of the property and the fact that PW2, witness of the plaintiff did not measure the property of both the parties, the trial Court found that plaintiff-appellant failed to prove the alleged encroachment at the behest of the defendant and accordingly dismissed the suit.

¶26

Having not been satisfied, the plaintiff-appellant preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court and lower Appellate Court also after examining the material and evidence brought on record as well as statement of the witness dismissed the appeal.

¶27

Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in the present appeal assiduously argued that both the Courts below have erroneously dismissed the suit and appeal. While doing so, it did not examine documentary evidence much less oral evidence and therefore, the regular second appeal involves substantial questions of law for determination of this Court.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶29

It is settled that in order to prove the case, plaintiffappellant has to stand on his own legs. The burden of prove is upon person who asserts particular fact and after discharging the same, the onus shifts upon the defendant to rebut the same. The instant case is a case of kind where plaintiff-appellant has failed to discharge the burden much less onus and therefore both the Courts below after examining the oral and documentary evidence

¶30

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.05 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶31

RSA No.1851 of 2013 (O&M)

¶32

¶33

concurrently found that there is no substance in the claim of the plaintiff-appellant.

¶34

I am in agreement with the findings rendered by both the Courts below as both the witnesses of the plaintiff-appellant prima facie conceded of not even giving the location of the property much less factum of measurement of the alleged encroachment.

¶35

No other argument has been raised.

¶36

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶37

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE

¶38

November 25, 2014 savita

¶39

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.05 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Kanwar Varinder Singh Sandhar v. Veera Wali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanwar Varinder Singh Sandhar v. Veera Wali

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

Sumit Kumar Vs Mukand Lal National College & Anr.

Dalbir Singh Vs Dhbvnl &Ors

Hoshiyari Devi & Anr. Vs Satyawan & Ors.

Meenu Vs Raj Pal & Anr.

M/S A.G. Food Limited Vs Punjab State Federation of Coop. Housing Building Society Ltd.

Mukhtiar Singh Vs Mukhtiar Singh