Dismissed¶29

Gurcharan Singh Deceased through His Lrs v. General Public and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Dec 2025RSA/1251/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA-1251-2022 (O&M), Punjab & Haryana High Court, decided 03.12.2025 by Justice Nidhi Gupta — Gurcharan Singh through his LRS v. General Public and others. Keywords: girdawari entry correction; tenant gair marusi; Jamabandi/revenue record rebuttal; concurrent findings of fact; no documentary evidence of possession; interested witness (sister's son); Kisan Credit Card passbook State Bank of India Bhirdana; mutation No. 3359 inheritance Jai Lal; Haryana Government land allotment scheme unproved; second appeal dismissed; Fatehabad courts.

What did the court decide?

The learned Courts below returned concurrent findings of fact against the plaintiff. ¶23

Gurcharan Singh Deceased through His Lrs Vs General Public and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff established continuous possession of the suit land for more than 30 years so as to be entitled to a declaration to that effect. +2 more

¶12

Court's answer

The learned Courts below returned concurrent findings of fact against the plaintiff.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Unlike defendant No.2, the plaintiff produced no documentary evidence to show he was in cultivating possession of the suit land, a fact admitted by him in his cross-examination.

¶23

Key takeaways

No evidence was produced by the plaintiff to rebut the revenue record in the form of the Jamabandis relied upon by defendant No.2.ratio¶23
Testimony of PW2 Maluk Singh and PW3 Karnail Singh could not be relied upon as they admitted giving testimonies on the asking of the plaintiff, and PW2 Maluk Singh, being the plaintiff's real nephew/sister's son, is an interested witness.ratio¶27
The plaintiff placed no document on record to show that the Government of Haryana had launched any Scheme for allotment of land to the plaintiff as Gair Marusi.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal — Regular Second Appeal RSA-1251-2022 (O&M) dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, upholding concurrent findings of the trial Court (ld. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad, judgment/decree 24.10.2016) and the first appellate Court (learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad, judgment/decree 20.09.2021). Plaintiff claiming cultivating possession of the suit land as tenant gair marusi for over 30 years and correction of girdawari entries standing in the name of defendant No.2 (Sahab Ram alias Hasana Ram) failed: Jamabandis for 1964-65, 2009-2010 and 2014-2015 (ownership column) and 1984-85 to 2004-2005 (cultivation column, 'Gair Marusi') consistently record Sahab Ram son of Jai Lal; plaintiff admittedly produced no documentary evidence of possession (admitted in cross-examination) and thus failed to rebut the revenue record; his supporting witnesses PW2 Maluk Singh and PW3 Karnail Singh were discredited as testifying on the plaintiff's asking, PW2 being the plaintiff's sister's son and hence an interested witness; defendant No.2 additionally proved Kisan Credit Card-cum-Passbook (Ex.D1) and mutation No. 3359 (Ex.D8/D8/A) recording inheritance of Jai Lal in favour of Lal Chand and Sahab Ram; no document showed any Haryana Government Scheme for allotment of land to the plaintiff as Gair Marusi. Held: no ground made out to interfere; appeal dismissed; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶1

RSA-1251-2022 (O&M) - 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

114 RSA-1251-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.12.2025

¶4

Gurcharan Singh through his LRS

¶5

...Appellant(s)

¶6

Vs.

¶7

General Public and others ...Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶9

Present:Mr. Ashok K. Verma, Advocate for the appellants.

¶10

¶11

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

¶12

The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the plaintiff has been in continuous possession of the suit land as described in the plaint for the last more than 30 years; and that the girdawari entries in the name of defendant No.2 are wrong and therefore liable to be declared null and void and liable to be corrected in favour of the plaintiff as tenant gair marusi; has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

¶13

It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that he has been in cultivating possession of the suit land for the last more than 30 years under defendant No.3. However, in the revenue record, the girdawari entry is in the name of defendant No.2 Sahab Ram. But, there is no person by the name of Sahab Ram in the village. As such, said girdawari entry is null and void since plaintiff was in actual physical possession of the suit

¶14

DIVYANSHI 2025.12.05 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

RSA-1251-2022 (O&M) - 2 -

¶16

land as tenant gair marusi; and there exists pucca room on the suit land. Therefore, girdawari entry contrary to the plaintiff is liable to be corrected in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff came to know about the impugned girdawari entry when he approached defendant No.4 for allotment of the said land under Haryana Government Scheme. Plaintiff requested the defendants for correction of girdawari entry in his name, however, they refused to do so. Hence, present suit was filed on 31.05.2014.

¶17

Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the ld. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 24.10.2016. The Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad vide judgment and decree dated 20.09.2021. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiff.

¶18

It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below are contrary to the facts and evidence on record as plaintiff has duly established that he is in cultivating possession of the suit land. The plaintiff had also proved that he had constructed pucca room on the land in dispute. Plaintiff has himself appeared in witness box as PW1 and supported his case. Plaintiff has also produced other witnesses i.e. PW2 Maluk Singh and PW3 Karnail Singh, who had endorsed the stand of the plaintiff that he is in possession of suit land as tenant gair marusi for the last more than 30 years under the State of Haryana/defendant No.3. No doubt, presumption of truth is attached to the Jamabandis produced by defendant No.2, however the same are

¶19

DIVYANSHI 2025.12.05 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

RSA-1251-2022 (O&M) - 3 -

¶21

rebuttable; which have been rebutted by the plaintiff by producing the above cogent evidence. However, the same has not been properly considered by the learned Courts below. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below be set aside.

¶22

No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant.

¶23

The learned Courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact against the plaintiff. Defendant No.2/Sahab Ram alias Hasana Ram had appeared as DW1 and tendered into evidence his afÏdavit Ex.DW1/A. Besides that, defendant no.2 had produced prolific revenue record in the form of Jamabandis for the year 2009-2010, 2014-2015 and for the year 1964-1965 Ex.D5, Ex.D6 and Ex.D7 in which name of Sahab Ram son of Jai Lal has been mentioned in ownership column. Moreover, even in Jamabandis for the year 2004-2005, 1999-2000, 1994-1995, 1989-1990, 1984-1985 Ex.P1 to Ex.P5, name of Sahab Ram son of Jai Lal has been mentioned as Gair Marusi in respect of the suit land in cultivation column. Admittedly unlike defendant No.2, plaintiff had produced no documentary evidence to show that he was in cultivating possession of the suit land as alleged. This fact has been admitted by the plaintiff in his crossexamination. Therefore, no evidence has been produced by the plaintiff to rebut the revenue record in the form of above said Jamabandis.

¶24

DIVYANSHI 2025.12.05 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

RSA-1251-2022 (O&M) - 4 -

¶26

Besides the above, defendant No.2 had led other comprehensive cogent documentary evidence to establish his case; including copy of passbook Ex.D1 issued by State Bank of India, Bhirdana Branch to defendant No.2 which showed that Lal Chand and Sahab Ram sons of Jai Lal had been issued Kisan Credit Card-cum-Passbook by the said Bank. Defendant No.2 had also brought on record the mutation No. 3359 Ex.D8 in Urdu language and its Hindi translation Ex.D8/A which shows that mutation No. 3359 in respect of inheritance of Jai Lal son of Saiditta was entered and sanctioned in favour of Lal Chand and Sahab Ram sons of Jai Lal as per shizra nasab mentioned in the said mutation.

¶27

Evidence of PW1 i.e. PW2 Maluk Singh and PW3 Karnail Singh could not be relied upon as the said witnesses have clearly admitted in their cross-examination that they were giving testimonies on the asking of the plaintiff. PW2 Maluk Singh had also admitted that he is real nephew/sister’s son of the plaintiff. Therefore, PW2 is an interested witness. Learned Courts below also found that Sahab Ram and Hasana Ram are one and the same person. Plaintiff also did not place on record any document to show that Government of Haryana had launched any Scheme for allotment of land to the plaintiff as Gair Marusi.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to controvert or dispute the above said facts and findings.

¶29

In view of the discussion above, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below. The present Regular Second Appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶30

DIVYANSHI 2025.12.05 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

RSA-1251-2022 (O&M) - 5 -

¶32

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶33

03.12.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶34

DIVYANSHI 2025.12.05 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gurcharan Singh Deceased through His Lrs v. General Public and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurcharan Singh Deceased through His Lrs v. General Public and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagar Singh Khattra and Others Vs Priyank Bharti

Nirmal Singh and Anr. Vs Ranjit Singh and Ors.

Sdo Op Sub Division Uklana Dhbvn Hisar Vs Joginder

Bhateri and Others Vs Bharat Bhushan and Others

Sant Kumar Vs Makhan Singh and Another

Mohit Kumar (Minor) Vs Vir Singh and Others