Defendant appealed against concurrent decrees for possession of land bought by plaintiff from Bashir Masih, claiming tenancy. Both courts found no evidence of tenancy—no rent note or receipt, and the previous owner was not examined. The High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal.
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.329 of 2024
2024:PHHC:027600
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
134 RSA No.329 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 27.02.2024
Niamat Masih ....Appellant
VERSUS
Fredrik Masih
....Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Simranjot Singh Nagra, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.02.28 08:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh
RSA No.329 of 2024
2024:PHHC:027600
2
the plaintiff-respondent, encroached upon the property in dispute. It was further the case set up by the plaintiff-respondent that the defendantappellant in order to grab the land of the plaintiff-respondent filed a false and frivolous suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff-respondent in which it was alleged that the suit land was purchased by the plaintiffrespondent and the defendant-appellant used to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/per month to plaintiff-respondent alleging his possession to be legal possession. Later on the said suit was withdrawn by the defendant-appellant before the Lok Adalat on 08.07.2017. On notice, the defendant-appellant appeared and filed his written statement and raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability and that the plaintiff-respondent has not come to Court with clean hands. On merits it was not disputed to the extent that earlier Bashir Masih was the owner in possession of the suit land and that he sold the same to the plaintiff-respondent and hence admitted the ownership of the plaintiff-respondent. It was however stated that the defendantappellant herein was a tenant on the suit property for the last 30 years, originally under Bashir Masih and then under the plaintiff-respondent. It was further averred that after purchasing the suit land the plaintiff-respondent started taking rent of Rs.300/- per month from the defendant-appellant. It was further the case that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the defendant-appellant and plaintiff-respondent and as such possession of the defendant-appellant over the suit land was legal, lawful and continuous for more than 30 years.
framed :
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.02.28 08:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh
RSA No.329 of 2024
2024:PHHC:027600
3
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.02.28 08:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh
RSA No.329 of 2024
2024:PHHC:027600
4
that he was occupying the suit land as a tenant. Even the previous owner, namely, Bashir Masih, under whom the defendant-appellant claimed to have been a tenant, was not examined by the defendant-appellant. In the absence of any evidence on the record no fault can be found with the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts. No other point was argued.
27.02.2024 jk
( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.02.28 08:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below decreeing possession of the suit land to the plaintiff required interference in second appeal.
Whether the defendant's plea of tenancy over the suit property was substantiated by any evidence.
Niamat Masih
Fredrik Masih
Alka Sarin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
