Dismissed¶30

Kurda Ram v. Jumla Mustarka Malkan

Regular Second Appeal – Suit for declaration

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jul 2025RSA/1950/1998

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Adverse possession — co-sharer — Jumla Mustarka Malkan — Bachat Khata — consolidation compulsory cut — jamabandi 1988-89, village Kumaria — inference of partition from recorded exclusive possession rejected absent revenue entry — declaration regarding correction of revenue entries refused — ex parte trial — concurrent findings of fact not interfered with in Regular Second Appeal — Punjab and Haryana High Court — RSA dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the second appeal was dismissed and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶30

Kurda Ram Vs Jumla Mustarka Malkan — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the second appeal was dismissed and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff-appellant, in possession of 35 kanal 18 marla out of 175 kanal 10 marla recorded as owned by Jumla Mustarka Malkan, became owner of the suit land by adverse possession and was entitled to correction of the revenue entries in his favour. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

The plea of adverse possession fails: the plaintiff simultaneously pleaded possession as a co-sharer and ownership by adverse possession, and neither he nor any of his witnesses deposed any ingredient to prove adverse possession.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Mere recording of the plaintiff's exclusive possession in the revenue record (Ex.P1 to P9) is not sufficient to infer partition of the Jumla Mustarka Malkan land, absent any revenue entry of partition; the plaintiff disclosed no date or even year of the alleged partition.

¶25

Key takeaways

There is no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below, which are based on proper appreciation of evidence; the second appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal — Suit for declaration — Plaintiff claimed that 175 kanal 10 marla left as Bachat Khata after consolidation belonged to co-sharers (Jumla Mustarka Malkan), that he was in open, continuous and uninterrupted possession of 35 kanal 18 marla equal to his share, and that he had become owner by adverse possession; he sought correction of jamabandi entries. Suit dismissed ex parte by trial Court on 06.09.1995; First Appellate Court affirmed on 10.12.1997. Held: (i) the plaintiff pleaded inconsistently — possession as co-sharer and ownership by adverse possession — and neither he nor any witness deposed any ingredient to prove adverse possession; (ii) mere recording of his exclusive possession in revenue records does not justify an inference that the khewat stood partitioned, in the absence of any revenue entry of partition and without any disclosed date or year of the alleged partition. Concurrent findings of fact affirmed; appeal dismissed. Speaking/reasoned: Yes; Reportable: No.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

¶2

RSA-1950-1998 (O&M) Reserved on: 15.07.2025 Pronounced on: 16.07.2025

KURDA RAM

. . . . APPELLANT

Vs.

JUMLA MUSTARKA MALKAN

¶7

. . . . RESPONDENT

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶10

¶11

Present: - Mr. Ravi Sodhi, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents.

¶12

¶13

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

¶14

Plaintiff of the case is before this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit for declaration filed by him was dismissed by the trial Court on 06.09.1995 and the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 10.12.1997, thus affirming the findings of the trial Court.

¶15

As per the case of the plaintiff, land measuring 175 kanal 10 marla is recorded to be owned by Jumla Mustarka Malkan in jamabandi for the year 1988-89 and that plaintiff is in possession to the extent of 35 kanal 18 marla (suit land) as a co-sharer. There are more than 200 cosharers in the revenue estate of village Kumaria, but the suit land measuring 35 kanal 18 marla is in his possession, being equal to his share. Plaintiff claimed that during consolidation proceedings, compulsory cut was imposed on the then landowners to have land for common purposes and that after exhausting the land for common purposes, 175 kanal 10 marla of land was left as Bachat Khata without utilization and so the same is owned by co-sharers Jumla Mustarka Malkan as per their share in the Khewat. Plaintiff further claimed that he is in open, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit land measuring 35 kanal 18 marla and

¶16

VIVEK PAHWA 2025.07.16 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

2025:PHHC: 086039

¶18

RSA-1950-1998

¶19

so has become owner thereof by way of adverse possession. He sought declaration that entries in favour of Jumla Mustarka Malkan regarding suit land are wrong and so, liable to be corrected in his favour.

¶20

Defendants-respondents herein did not contest the suit and were proceeded ex parte.

¶21

After taking ex parte evidence, learned trial Court considered the matter and dismissed the suit on 06.09.1995 and the Appellate Court affirmed the findings as noted earlier.

¶22

Assailing the aforesaid findings, it is contended by learned counsel that possession of the appellant-plaintiff on the suit property is recorded since long, which in itself is an indicator that the khewat of 175 kanal 10 marla must have been partitioned amongst the co-shares and as such, plaintiff is liable to be recorded as exclusive owner in possession of the suit land.

¶23

This Court does not find merit in the aforesaid contention of the petitioner.

¶24

As noted by the Appellate Court, plaintiff on one hand pleaded to be in possession of the suit property as a co-sharer of Jumla Mustarka Malkan; and on the other hand, he pleaded to have become owner of the same by way of adverse possession. Neither plaintiff nor any of his witness deposed any ingredient to prove adverse possession.

¶25

Coming to the plea of plaintiff having become owner of the suit land, though in the revenue record Ex.P1 to P9, plaintiff is shown to be in possession, but it is Jumla Mustarka Malkan, which is recorded to be owner of the suit property. Merely because exclusive possession of the plaintiff is recorded in the suit land in itself is not sufficient to infer that land of Jumla Mustarka Malkan might have been partitioned, in the absence of any revenue entry to that effect. No date or even year has been disclosed by the plaintiff, when any alleged partition had taken place. As observed by the Courts below, there is no mention in the revenue record regarding the partition of the Jumla Mustarka Malkan property.

¶26

VIVEK PAHWA 2025.07.16 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

2025:PHHC: 086039

¶29

RSA-1950-1998

¶30

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, there is no ground to interfere in the well-reasoned concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below, which are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. As such, holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶31

Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of.

¶32

(DEEPAK GUPTA) 16.07.2025 JUDGE �� Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No

¶33

VIVEK PAHWA 2025.07.16 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

Page 3 of 3

Kurda Ram v. Jumla Mustarka Malkan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurda Ram v. Jumla Mustarka Malkan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Malkit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Umed Vs Tarawati Alias Tara Devi and Others

Ram Kishan Yadav Vs Utter Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Ors.

Ram Saran & Ors. Vs Sushil Kumar & Ors.

Gurjit Singh Vs State of Punjab