Dismissed

Anchal Singh v. Darshan and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Dec 2024RSA/579/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal against the concurrent dismissal of a civil suit seeking declaration of ownership over a manure pit and permanent injunction. The Court held the appellant failed to prove the pit was appurtenant to the allotted land despite the ex parte status of the respondents.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the dismissal of the original suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction.

Anchal Singh Vs Darshan and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

RSA-579-2019 (O&M) Reserved on: -16.12.2024

¶3

Pronounced on:- 19.12.2024

ANCHAL SINGH

. . . .APPELLANT

Vs.

DARSHAN AND OTHERS

. . . . RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶11

¶12

Argued By:- Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate, with

¶13

Mr. Aryaman Thakur, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶14

¶15

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

¶16

Plaintiff of the suit is before this Court against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit filed by him seeking decree of declaration regarding the property in dispute, was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by him has been dismissed by the Appellate Court.

¶17

2.1 As per the case set up by the plaintiff, lands of several owners and inhabitants of various villages of Tehsil Kharar of Joint Punjab were acquired for establishing the Capital of Punjab at Chandigarh during 1950. The owners of the acquired land were given alternative agricultural and non-agricultural land in adjoining villages. Number of persons, whose lands were acquired were allotted agricultural land along with all rights appurtenant thereto such as gohar, manure pit/ kuraree at village Barwala, now Tehsil and District Panchkula. The allottees were given the status of proprietors of revenue estate Barwala.

¶18

2.2 It was claimed further by the plaintiff that one Prem Sagar s/o Nauhria r/o Village Hallo Majra, Tehsil Kharar was one such allottee of the land measuring 7 bigha 12 biswa comprised in Khewat/Khatoni No.333/454, Khasra No.16/12 situated in village Barwala. After allotment, said Prem Sagar alienated the same to Arjan Singh, the father of the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 24.05.1965 with all rights appurtenant to the land including manure pit

¶19

VIVEK PAHWA 2024.12.20 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

RSA-579-2019

¶21

2024:PHHC:170419

¶22

/kuraree etc. It was claimed by the plaintiff that he alongwith proforma defendants are successors of Arjan Singh. It was alleged that name of Prem Sagar was not included in the list of allottees of the manure pit /kuraree comprised in khasra No.32/2/2/7 situated at Barwala because the allotment to Prem Sagar was subsequent to the preparation of consolidation jamabandi. It was claimed that name of Prem Sagar was liable to be added to the list of allottees. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant Nos.1 and 2 were threatening to take over the suit land forcibly and to raise construction thereon.

¶23

2.3 With all these submissions, plaintiff brought the suit seeking decree of declaration that gadha khad kuraree/manure-pit bearing No.32/2/2/7 was the ownership of the plaintiff and that defendants did not have any right or title or interest therein. Plaintiff further prayed for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land or alienating or creating any kind of interest therein.

¶24

2.4 None of the defendants contested the suit and were proceeded exparte . Ex-parte evidence produced by the plaintiff was taken on record. The trial Court vide judgment dated 23.10.2015 held that plaintiff failed to prove his case and accordingly dismissed the suit. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 17.09.2018, by upholding the findings of the trial Court and by holding that merely because defendants were proceeded ex parte , could be the reason to decree the suit, as it was for the plaintiff to establish his case.

¶25

Assailing the aforesaid concurrent finding of facts, it is contended by ld. counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that sufficient evidence was produced to show the ownership rights of the plaintiff in the suit land; that defendants did not contest the suit and that the evidence produced by the plaintiff remained un-rebutted and so, suit should have been decreed.

¶26

This Court has considered submissions of learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and has appraised the trial Court record.

¶27

VIVEK PAHWA 2024.12.20 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

Page 2 of 4

¶29

RSA-579-2019

¶30

2024:PHHC:170419

¶31

As per the settled position of law, plaintiff is required to establish his own case on merits. Even if defendants remain ex parte , plaintiff is still required to prove his case by producing the cogent evidence. Simply because defendants didn’t contest the suit, cannot be the reason to believe the case of plaintiff or to decree the same for this reason itself.

¶32

Although plaintiff has produced in evidence sale deed (Ex.P1), whereby Prem Sagar sold the land measuring 7 bigha 12 biswa to Arjan Singh, but there is no evidence that the said land as sold by Prem Sagar to the father of the plaintiff had been allotted to Prem Sagar. Most importantly, plaintiff failed to establish that gadha khad/manure-pit bearing No.32/2/2/7 was appurtenant to the land, which was sold by Prem Sagar to the father of the plaintiff. Though plaintiff in his evidence produced allotment of manure-pit record of village Barwala as Ex.P9, but it was not attested by any concerned department. No witness was examined to prove the same. As has been observed by the First Appellate Court that even the said record Ex.P9 simply indicates that a khadda Khad bearing Khasra No.314/18 was allotted to Arjan Singh son of Devi Singh.

¶33

Apart from above, plaintiff failed to examine any witness from Capital Project Department or the Revenue Department Barwala, so as to prove that any land was allotted to Prem Sagar and if so, whether any khadda khad/manure-pit-kuraree was appurtenant to the land, so allotted to Prem Sagar. More importantly, there is no evidence that khadda khad/manure-pitkuraree bearing No.32/2/2/7 was appurtenant to the land allegedly allotted to Prem Sagar.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Courts below did not commit any error in dismissing the suit. This Court does not find any ground so as to disturb the well reasoned concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below, which are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. No substantial question of law is found to be involved.

¶35

VIVEK PAHWA 2024.12.20 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

Page 3 of 4

¶37

RSA-579-2019

¶38

2024:PHHC:170419

¶39

As such holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶40

19.12.2024 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
�� JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
Whether reportable? No

¶41

VIVEK PAHWA 2024.12.20 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

Page 4 of 4

Anchal Singh v. Darshan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anchal Singh v. Darshan and Ors.

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

Narinder Pal Singh Alias Narinder Arora Vs M/S Shri Balaji Multi Metal Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Gurbaksh Singh etc. Vs Prem Singh\

Karam Chand Vs Lachhmi Devi and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Vs Krishna

A Vs S

Mewa Singh Vs Sewa Singh and Anr.