Dismissed¶15

Anil and Anr. v. Ram Karan

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Dec 2025RSA/1259/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal dismissed — excess conveyance by sale deed; nemo dat quod non habet applied. Keywords: Punjab Village Common Lands Act Section 13 (civil court jurisdiction bar over Panchayat land title); Section 7 petition for removal of encroachment; Panchayat allotment Plot No.929 (183.33 Sq. Yards) vs sale deed dimensions totalling 315 Sq. Yards; Sale Deed No.6051 dated 01.02.2010 (Exhibit D-1); Field Book original not produced; declaration and injunction suit; Lower Appellate Court findings affirmed; no title better than what is vested; defendants/appellants Anil and another vs plaintiff/respondent Ram Karan; decided 09.12.2025 by Pankaj Jain, J.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the regular second appeal was dismissed and the Lower Appellate Court's decree in favour of the plaintiff stands affirmed. ¶15

Anil and Anr. Vs Ram Karan — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the regular second appeal was dismissed and the Lower Appellate Court's decree in favour of the plaintiff stands affirmed.

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in relying upon the Field Book, whose original was not produced before the Courts below, to hold that the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 covered area in excess of the plot allotted to defendant No.2 by the Panchayat.

¶10

Court's answer

The Panchayat allotments of Plot Nos. 928, 929 and 930 are not in dispute, and it is undisputed that Plot No.929 allotted to defendant No.2 measured 183.33 Sq. Yards.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

In sale deed No.6051 dated 01.02.2010 (Exhibit D-1) the dimensions of Plot No.929 are recorded as East-14 ft., West-46 ft., South-90.9 ft. and North-99 ft., and counsel for the appellants does not dispute that on these dimensions the area works out to 315 Sq. Yards, substantially exceeding the area allotted to defendant No.2 by the Panchayat.

¶13

Key takeaways

Applying the settled principle that no person can convey a title better than what is vested in him.ratio¶13
The dimensions of Plot No.929 as recited in sale deed bearing No.6051 dated 01.02.2010 (Exhibit D-1) are to be ignored.ratio¶13
Defendant No.1 cannot claim area comprising Plot No.929 over and above the area allotted to defendant No.2 by the Panchayat; the Lower Appellate Court rightly so held despite non-production of the original Field Book.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RSA No.1259 of 2021 (Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; Pankaj Jain, J., oral; decided 09.12.2025) — Defendants in second appeal. Plaintiff (respondent Ram Karan) had sued for declaration that Sale Deed No.6051 dated 01.02.2010 (Exhibit D-1) executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 qua portion KIHJ was null and void and not binding on him, along with injunction against construction on the encroached portion. The trial Court of First Instance had declined jurisdiction relying on Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act (as applicable to Haryana), holding that title to Panchayat land cannot be adjudicated by a Civil Court; the plaintiff's first appeal was allowed by the Lower Appellate Court. In the present appeal the defendants contended that the Lower Appellate Court erred in relying on the Field Book, whose original was not produced. The High Court held: (i) the Panchayat allotments of Plot Nos. 928, 929, 930 were undisputed, Plot No.929 allotted to defendant No.2 measuring 183.33 Sq. Yards; (ii) the sale deed recites dimensions (East-14 ft., West-46 ft., South-90.9 ft., North-99 ft.) yielding 315 Sq. Yards, which counsel did not dispute; (iii) applying the settled principle that no person can convey a title better than what is vested in him, the sale-deed dimensions must be ignored and defendant No.1 cannot claim Plot No.929 area beyond the Panchayat allotment to defendant No.2; (iv) no fault could be found with the Lower Appellate Court's findings decreeing the plaintiff's suit. Appeal dismissed.

¶1

RSA No.1259 of 2021

¶2

¶3

128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.1259 of 2021 Date of Decision : 09.12.2025

Anil and another

....Appellants

Versus

Ram Karan .....Respondent

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶10

Present : Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate, Ms. Anshul Agnihotri Advocate and Mr. Anuj Y. Attri, Advocate for the appellants.

¶11

Mr. Vikas Gulia, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

¶13

Defendants are in appeal.

¶14

For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as by their original position before the Court of First Instance i.e., the appellants as defendants and the respondent as plaintiff.

¶15

Plaintiff filed a suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect that the Sale Deed bearing No.6051, dated 01.02.2010 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 qua area to the extent of portion KIHJ shown in red colour in the site plan attached to the plaint, is wrong, illegal, null and void and is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff.

¶16

DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.12.18 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

RSA No.1259 of 2021

¶18

¶19

Plaintiff further prayed for injunction against the defendants from raising construction over the encroached portion of land.

¶20

As per plaintiff, he is owner in possession of plot/house bearing No.928 as an allottee under Panchayat. Plots bearing Nos.929 and 930 were allotted to defendant No.2 and defendant No.3, respectively with 15 ft. vide public street reserved for common use. Both defendant No.2 and defendant No.3, sold their respective plots in favour of defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 sold an area in excess of that allotted to him by the Panchayat.

¶21

Suit was contested by the defendants. As per defendants, father of defendant No.1 filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, against the plaintiff seeking removal of encroachment made by the plaintiff on the public street. The present suit is a counter-blast to the same. As per the defendants, it is the plaintiff, who has encroached upon disputed portion of the street on the eastern side of his house. Defendant No.2 was in peaceful possession of the disputed plot since the time of his fore-fathers and, vide impugned sale deed, has transferred the same in favour of defendant No.1, who is in established possession thereof.

¶22

Suit filed by the plaintiff was put to trial by the Court of the First Instance, framing following issues:

¶23

“1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration as prayed for? OPP.

¶24

DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.12.18 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

RSA No.1259 of 2021

¶26

¶27

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.

¶28

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP.

¶29

Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.

¶30

Whether the plaintiff has concealed true and material facts from this Court? OPD.

¶31

Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD.

¶32

Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD.

¶33

Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? OPD.

¶34

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.

¶35

Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.

¶36

Relief.

¶37

The Court of First Instance relied upon Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, as applicable to the State of Haryana, held that questions regarding title of the Panchayat land cannot be adjudicated by Civil Court, and thus, the jurisdiction of this Civil Court is barred from entertaining the suit in question.

¶38

Unsuccessful plaintiff filed appeal.

¶39

The same has been allowed by the Lower Appellate Court.

¶40

Ld. Counsel for the appellants has assailed the findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court. It has been contended that the Lower Appellate Court has relied upon Field Book to hold that the area sold

¶41

DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.12.18 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

RSA No.1259 of 2021

¶43

¶44

to defendant No.1 is in excess of the area of plot. The original Field Book having not been produced before the Courts below, the Lower Appellate Court erred in relying upon the Field Book to hold that the sale deed qua excess area in favour of the appellant, is bad.

¶45

I have heard counsel for the appellant and have carefully gone through records of the case.

¶46

The allotment by the Panchayat in favour of the plaintiff, defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 w.r.t. Plot No.928, Plot No.929 and Plot No.930 respectively, are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that plot No.929 allotted in favour of defendant No.2 measured 183.33 Sq. Yards. However, in the impugned sale deed, bearing document No.6051 dated 01.02.2010 (Exhibit D-1), the dimensions of the Plot No.929 are recorded as East-14 ft., West-46 ft., South-90.9 ft. and North-99 ft.

¶47

Counsel for the appellants does not dispute that if the area is calculated as per the dimensions given herein-above, the same comes out to be 315 Sq. Yards. The actual dimensions of the plot allotted to defendant No.2 by the Panchayat are substantially less than the area sold by defendant No.2 to defendant No.1. As per settled law, no person can convey a title better than what is vested in him. Thus, the Lower Appellate Court rightly held that the dimensions of Plot No.929 as mentioned in the sale deed bearing No.6051 dated 01.02.2010 (Exhibit D-1) need to be ignored and defendant No.1 cannot claim area comprising Plot No.929 over and above the one allotted to defendant No.2 by the Panchayat.

¶48

DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.12.18 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

RSA No.1259 of 2021

¶50

¶51

In view of above, this Court finds that no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Lower appellate Court in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff.

¶52

Finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is ordered to be

¶53

dismissed.

¶54

December 09, 2025	(P	ankaj Jain)
Dpr		Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶55

DEEPAK KUMAR 2025.12.18 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Anil and Anr. v. Ram Karan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil and Anr. v. Ram Karan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M)E.S.I.C. Vs M/S Metlex Private Ltd.

Gurbani Bal Vs Vinod Kumar and Ors.

Lakshmi etc. Vs Sohan Kumar etc.

Nirmala etc. Vs Jagdish etc.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Another Vs Sukhdev Singh Jagdev

Bhagwan Dass Vs Bhoop Singh and Others