Dismissed

Om Parkash and Anr. v. Mohinder Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Dec 2018RSA/1461/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding agricultural land, the appellant challenged the dismissal of an injunction claim based on alleged long possession. The court held that reliance on flawed possession entries without supporting orders failed to establish settled possession, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Regular second appeal dismissed; no ground for interference made out.

Om Parkash and Anr. Vs Mohinder Singh and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

YOGESH SHARMA 2018.12.11 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1

¶2

RSA-1461-2016 (O&M)

¶3

110

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

RSA-1461-2016 (O&M) Date of decision : 03.12.2018

¶6

Om Parkash and another

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mohinder Singh and others

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶12

Present: Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the appellants.

¶13

¶14

AMIT RAWAL, J.

¶15

The appellants-plaintiffs have not been successful in claiming the injunction against the defendants restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and supporters from taking force possession or interference in the peaceful possession in respect of agricultural land comprising Khewat Khatoni No.34/155, Khasra No.139 (9-0), 140 (2-15), 141 (6-5), situated in Village Jambo Majra, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

¶16

It was alleged that the plaintiffs had been regularly paying rent to Ved Parkash, who was in possession of the suit land belonging to the State Government. Ved Parkash along with Subash Chand, having half share each, had transferred the possession and rapat roznamcha dated 30.07.1998, in this regard , was recorded by the revenue department. The possession, thereafter, continuously was with the plaintiffs, which was also reflected in the khasra girdawaris till the filing of the suit in the year 2013.

¶17

YOGESH SHARMA 2018.12.11 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2

¶18

RSA-1461-2016 (O&M)

¶19

The defendants also stated to have purchased the land vide registered agreement to sell dated 25.06.2007. The defendants denied the plaintiffs to be in possession of the suit property claimed themselves to be in possession.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs submitted that both the Courts below have committed illegality in nonsuiting the plaintiffs as the best possible relief of injunction on the basis of long and settled possession has been proved through jamabandi, rapat roznamcha and khasra girdawaris. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the ratio decidendi culled out by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in "Rame Gowda (D) LRs V/s Mr. Varadappa Naidu (D) by LRs and another" 2004 (1) SCC 769. No doubt the plaintiffs claim qua ownership had been on weak wicket, but consequential relief of injunction, as per the settled and long possession, could have been granted as no one raised a finger for correcting the entry.

¶21

I am afraid the argument is not sustainable as a person claiming injunction while seeking equity must do equity. Two mutual destructive pleas of ownership and possession as per the case set out by the plaintiffs can run simultaneously. Once the rapat roznamcha dated 30.07.1998 was relied upon, the question of writing in March 2008 did not arise. It is not discernible whether the possession was from 1997 or 2008. To misery of the plaintiffs, PW4-Satnam Singh, Patwari, in cross-examination admitted that there was no order regarding entry of rapat roznamcha . The incorrect entry, in such circumstances, cannot be basis for establishing the long and settled possession to obtain the injunction. This is what has been noticed by the Courts below.

¶22

Keeping in view the aforementioned facts, I do not find any

¶23

YOGESH SHARMA 2018.12.11 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1461-2016 (O&M) 3

¶24

illegality and perversity in the concurrent findings, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination. No ground for interference is made out.

¶25

Resultantly, the regular second appeal is dismissed.

¶26

03.12.2018 ( AMIT RAWAL ) Yogesh Sharma JUDGE

¶27

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ No

¶28

Whether Reportable Yes/ No

Om Parkash and Anr. v. Mohinder Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Parkash and Anr. v. Mohinder Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjit Singh Vs Surjit Kaur Thr Lrs Bhupinder Kaur & Ors.

Satish Kumar Vs Amrik Singh and Anr.

Mohinder Singh (Since Died) Represented Th Lrs Vs Harcharan Kaur & Anr.

Malkiat Singh & Anr. Vs Sdo, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Chhaju Singh Vs Satyawan and Ors.

Gurdev Singh Vs Surjit Singh and Anr.