Dismissed

(O&M)Nawal Singh etc. v. Nahan Foundary Ltd. Nahan

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Apr 2024RSA/1885/1989

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court (Oral) refused to interfere in two connected appeals arising from consolidated suits regarding land allotment and possession. The court held that since both parties are co-sharers, the allottee must seek partition rather than a decree for possession, thus dismissing the appeals.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals were dismissed; the allottee directed to avail the remedy of partition as held by the First Appellate Court.

(O&M)Nawal Singh etc. Vs Nahan Foundary Ltd. Nahan — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

RSA-1885-1989 (O&M)

¶2

2024:PHHC:049274

¶3

[115] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA-1885-1989 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.04.2024

¶5

NAWAL SINGH AND OTHERS …Appellants

¶6

versus

¶7

NAHAN FOUNDARY LIMITED, NAHAN

¶8

….Respondent

¶9

RSA-529-1990 (O&M)

¶10

NAWAL SINGH AND OTHERS …Appellants

¶11

versus

¶12

NAHAN FOUNDARY LIMITED, NAHAN

¶13

….Respondent

¶14

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICEANIL KSHETARPAL

¶15

Present : Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the appellants.

¶16

¶17

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (ORAL)

¶18

C.M.No.17091-C-2016 IN RSA NO.1885-1989 C.M.No.17096-C-2016 IN RSA NO.529-1990

¶19

[1]. For the reasons stated in these applications, which are supported by an affidavit, the same are allowed and both the appeals are restored to its original number. With the consent of the learned counsel representing the Appellant, both the appeals are taken on Board.

¶20

Raman Kumar 2024.04.24 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-529-1990 (O&M)

2024:PHHC:049274

MAIN

[2] Though only application for restoration of the two connected old appeals are listed. However, with the consent of the counsel representing the appellant, the arguments in appeals have been heard.

¶25

[3] In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

¶26

[4] Two separate suits were filed, one by Nahan Foundary Limited, Nahan for grant of decree of permanent injunction, whereas the other suit filed by Sh. Nawal Singh and others for grant of decree of possession. It is the case of Nahan Foundary Limited that they are tenants in possession of the property from 1931 and the company has been allotted some part of the land on 31.05.1961, by the Government. Whereas, it is the case of Sh. Nawal Singh and others that they were allotted 4 Bighas and 6 Biswas land in various Khewats including Khewat No.433 on 07.07.1955 and they are entitled to possession. Both the suits were consolidated. The Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh, claimed that there is a passage in between the property.

¶27

[5] The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the Nahan Foundary Limited, whereas the suit filed by Sh. Nawal Singh and others was decreed. As many as three appeals were filed before the First Appellate Court, one by the Municipal Committee and other two appeals were filed by Nahan Foundary Limited. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence, the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Municipal Committee, whereas two appeals filed by Nahan Foundary Limited have been accepted. That is how these two appeals have been filed by Nawal Singh and others. The Municipal Committee has not filed

¶28

Raman Kumar 2024.04.24 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

any appeal.

RSA-529-1990 (O&M)

2024:PHHC:049274

[6] Heard the learned counsel representing the Appellant at length and with his able assistanc perused the paper book.

¶33

[7] The learned counsel representing the Appellant contends that there is no dispute that Sh. Nawal Singh and others were allotted 4 Bighas and 6 Biswas of land by the Custodian Department on 07.07.1955 (Ex-D-1). Subsequently, the same was confirmed on 03.01.1956 and thereupon, the sale certificate dated 06.01.1956, was issued by the competent authority. He submits that Nahan Foundary Limited, Nahan was allotted 1 Bigha and 2 Biswas land comprised in Khewat No.433. Hence, the plaintiff’s suit was required to be decreed.

¶34

[8] This court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel representing the appellant.

¶35

[9] The First Appellate Court held that the allotment in favour of the Sh. Nawal Singh and others as well as Nahan Foundary Limited, Nahan was correct, however, Nahan Foundary Limited, Nahan is in possession from 08.05.1931, by way of partition. Consequently, Sh. Nawal Singh and others can get possession only by seeking ejectment of the tenant because Nahan Foundary was allotted some part of the property.

¶36

[10] So in substance, the dispute is as to whether decree for possession in favour of Sh. Nawal Singh and others can be passed or not? The rival plaintiff in both the suits have been allotted land from a common Khewat by the Government. They have become co-sharer in the suit property. Hence the plaintiff Sh. Nawal Singh and others is required to file a suit for partition. Consequently, there is no error in the findings

¶37

Raman Kumar 2024.04.24 15:47 of the facts arrived at by the First Appellate Court. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

RSA-529-1990 (O&M)

¶39

2024:PHHC:049274

¶40

[11] It may be noted here that the allotment of part of the property in favour of Sh. Nawal Singh and others and Nahan Foundary Limited, Nahan has not been set aside.

¶41

[12] Consequently, Sh. Nawal Singh and others may, if so advised, to avail their remedy as directed by the First Appellate Court. [13] Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no

¶42

ground to interfere is made out.

¶43

[14] Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.

¶44

[15] All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

¶45

disposed of.

¶46

(ANIL KSHETARPAL) JUDGE

¶47

10.04.2024

¶48

/Raman

¶49

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶50

Raman Kumar 2024.04.24 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(O&M)Nawal Singh etc. v. Nahan Foundary Ltd. Nahan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M)Nawal Singh etc. v. Nahan Foundary Ltd. Nahan

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

Hans Raj Vs Subhash Chander and Others

Bant Ram Vs Dharam Pal and Ors.

Jaspal Singh Vs M/S Satnam Trading and Ors.

A.C. Khaneja through His Lrs. Surender Khaneja and Ors. Vs Om Parkash & Anr.

Salinder Singh Vs Palwinder Kaur and Others

Nawal Singh Vs Nahan Foundary Ltd.