Dismissed

Nand Lal and Ors. v. Prema Devi and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Dec 2018RSA/1839/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against an order granting injunction in a property suit involving correction of revenue entries, the High Court dismissed the appeal. It upheld the lower appellate court's order, relying on settled possession evidence and finding no perversity in granting relief without a declaration. A six-member bench heard the matter resulting in no substantial question of law.

What did the court decide?

IN ORDER DISMISSED THE APPEAL HELD THERE IS NO LEGAL OR FACTUAL PURETY IN THE ORDER OF LOWER APPPELLATE COURT

Nand Lal and Ors. Vs Prema Devi and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

RSA No.1839 of 2016 (O&M)

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.1839 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision:05.12.2018

Nand Lal and others

... Appellants

Vs.

Prema Devi and others

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶11

Present:Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

¶12

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

¶13

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of Lower Appellate Court granting injunction in favour of the respondentplaintiffs who were not successful in seeking the declaration and injunction before the trial Court.

¶14

The plaintiff-respondents asserted that as per the revenue record, they had sought the declaration of suit land measuring 1 kanal 13 marlas comprised in khewat no.181 khatoni no.232 khasra no.138 as their possession was with them since forefathers, thus, sought correction of illegal entry in the name of defendants.

¶15

It was alleged that suit land was succeeded by the plaintiff from Heera Lal son of Jairam in succession and suit land being gair mumkin, was in the ownership of shamlat deh whereupon the plaintiff was in possession

¶16

SAVITA KADIAN 2019.01.03 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶17

RSA No.1839 of 2016 (O&M) {2}

¶18

as co-sharer. The name of defendant's father-Durga Prasad was wrongly mentioned in the column of khana-kast. Under the garb of aforementioned entry, extended threat of forcible interference and possession, thus, cause of action arose to file the suit.

¶19

The defendants opposed the suit and attempted to give story that one Mahadevi widow of Sheokaran was in the possession of suit land measuring 5 kanals 8 marlas as per the jamabandi for the year 1980-81, thereafter, Durga Prasad son of Chunni Lal, father of defendants came into possession of 1 kanal 13 marlas of land in the year 1984 and Mahadevi continued to be in possession of 4 kanals 5 marlas of land.

¶20

The plaintiffs in support of the aforementioned assertions, brought on record the following documents:-

¶21

Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 copy of jamabandi for the year 2001-02 Ex.P3 & Ex.P4 copy of jamabandi for the year 1990-91. Ex.P5 copy of jamabandi for the year 1980-81. Ex.P6 copy of khasra girdawari for the year 1981 to 1986. Ex.P7 copy of khasra girdawari for the year 200206. Ex.P8 copy of rapat no.782 dated 15.10.1984 Ex.P9 copy of order dated 15.02.1983 passed by Sh. Ajit M. Saran. Ex.P10 copy of decree sheet.

¶22

On the other hand, defendants brought on record the following

¶23

documents:-

¶24

SAVITA KADIAN 2019.01.03 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶25

RSA No.1839 of 2016 (O&M)

¶26

{3}

¶27

“Ex.D1	copy of sale deed bearing vasika no.113 dated 25.09.2007.
Ex.D2	copy of sale deed bearing vasika no.1172 dated 25.09.2007
Ex.D3	copy of sale deed bearing vasika no.1173 dated 25.09.2007.
Ex.D4	copy of sale deed bearing vasika no.1175 dated 14.11.2005
Ex.D5	copy of sale deed bearing vasika no.1174 dated 14.11.2005
Ex.D6	copy of rapat no.523
Ex.D7	copy of rapat no.611
Ex.D8	copy of order dated 30.10.1981 passed by AC-Ist Grade, Narnaul.
Ex.D9	copy of application no.38 VCL/CJM dated 25.4.2008.”

¶28

From the khasra girdawari Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 coupled with the jamabandi Ex.P1 to Ex.P5, the possession of the plaintiff had been proved whereas on the contrary, defendants had been shown only in Ex.D7. The suit was dismissed as the plaintiff could not have been declared occupant tenant in the absence of impleadment of real owner i.e. Gram Panchayat. However, while noticing the possession, the Lower Appellate Court granted the injunction as noticed above.

¶29

Mr. J.P.Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the plaintiff-respondents are residing in some other village and had no concern with Mahadevi whose possession was also reflected in khasra girdawari. No relationship has been established as to how the plaintiff came to be in possession of aforementioned land. Ex.D7 was the exact entry. The Lower Appellate Court ought not to have ordered

¶30

SAVITA KADIAN 2019.01.03 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶31

RSA No.1839 of 2016 (O&M) {4}

¶32

for correction in the entry for deleting the name of Durga Prasad, in the absence of relief of declaration. All the sale deeds, referred to above have not been read in correct perspective and therefore, there is gross illegality and perversity.

¶33

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-defendants, appraised the judgments and decrees as well as record of the Courts below and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submissions of Mr. Sharma, for, khasra girdawari reflected the possession of 1 kanal 13 marlas comprised in khasra no.138 but the defendants in the jamabandi Ex.P3 have been shown to be in possession of khasra no.19//8/2/1 measuring 19 marlas. Ex.P6 was shown in the name of Mahadevi and Ex.P7 established Jaidai, thereafter, in favour of Jagmal. Innocuous injunction has been granted on the basis of long and settled possession which is recognized as per the ratio decidendi culled out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rame Gowda (D) by LRs vs. Mr. Varadappa Naidu (D) by LRs and another 2004(1) SCC 769. Ex.D7 is the rapat which showed the name of Durga Prasad in the column no.5 brought on record through testimony but the same remained un-proved and therefore, cannot be looked into.

¶34

As an upshot of my findings, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the findings rendered by the Lower Appellate Court which are based upon the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, much less no substantial question of law arises for adjudication of the present appeal.

¶35

SAVITA KADIAN 2019.01.03 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶36

RSA No.1839 of 2016 (O&M)

¶37

{5}

¶38

The appeal stands dismissed.

¶39

	(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
December 05, 2018 savita
Whether Speaking/Reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶40

SAVITA KADIAN 2019.01.03 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Nand Lal and Ors. v. Prema Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nand Lal and Ors. v. Prema Devi 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

Atma Singh Vs Surinderpal Sood & Ors.

Hem Raj Garg Vs Punjab Relief Society and Anr.

Punjab Waqf Board Vs Naresh Khosla and Ors.

HUDA & Ors. Vs Inderjeet Kaur & Anr.

Resham Singh and Anr. Vs Mewa Singh and Anr.

Satnam Singh Vs Baljit Kaur etc.