Appeals against concurrent judgments dismissing suits for property title based on Khatauni paimaish. Delay for refiling was condoned but appeals were dismissed as successors-in-interest held title by that document.
Delay condoned. Both appeals dismissed. Principal claims based on title were rejected.
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.
RSA No. 4587 of 2012 (O&M)+connected case 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : 12.3.2018
209-a RSA No. 4586 of 2012 (O&M)
Surender Pal and others ....Appellants
VS
Gulab Singh and others ....Respondents
209 RSA No. 4587 of 2012 (O&M)
Surender Pal and others
....Appellants
VS
Gulab Singh and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present: Dr. Praveen Hans, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate for the respondents.
AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral)
CM No. 12803-C-2012 in RSA No. 4586 of 2012 and CM No. 12805-C-2012 in RSA No. 4587 of 2012
These are two applications for condonation of 73 days delay
in refiling the appeals.
For the reasons recorded in the applications, the same are
allowed and delay of 73 days in refiling the appeals is condoned.
Anuradha 2018.03.21 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No. 4587 of 2012 (O&M)+connected case 2 Main Cases
This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
These two appeals have been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing two separate suits filed by the appellants. The said two suits belong to two different properties where the rights claimed by both the parties are the same. For the sake of convenience the facts are being taken from RSA No. 4586 of 2012.
The case of the appellants was that the revenue record showing one Kanal three Marlas abadi land to be in the ownership of the respondents was illegal. The appellants were actually owners of half share of that land. Both the courts below found that that land had been allotted to predecessor-in-interest of the respondents by way of final Khatauni paimaish in 1954-55 and since the appellants did not lay challenge to that document in the suit which was filed in the year 2007 and merely contented themselves which challenging the previous documents and subsequent revenue record, the suit would have to fail. Moreover, it was held that it was beyond limitation.
Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that once the appellants were suing on the basis of title, limitation could not have stood in their way. Moreover as per him, the omission of challenge to Khatauni paimaish would not be fatal.
In my opinion, even if something may be said about the first argument, the second argument must fail. Counsel is not in a position to
Anuradha 2018.03.21 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3
RSA No. 4587 of 2012 (O&M)+connected case
deny that predecessor-in-interest of respondents got title in the property in dispute by the Khatauni paimaish and once that was not challenged, the suit cannot be held to be maintainable.
Both the appeals stand dismissed
Since the main cases have been decided, the pending C.M, if
any, also stand disposed of.
12.3.2018 anuradha
(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned - Yes/No Whether reportable - Yes/No
Anuradha 2018.03.21 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay for refiling appeals was allowed.
Whether an appeal against dismissal of title suits based on unchallenged transfer documents by predecessor-in-interest was allowed.
Whether the suit was barred by limitation or improper evidence.
Surender Pal and others
Gulab Singh and others
AJAY TEWARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
