Dismissed¶30

Baldev Dass v. Subhash and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jan 2025RSA/1998/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Baldev Dass v. Subhash and others; 119 RSA-1998-2022 (O&M); High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; Alka Sarin, J.; decided 21.01.2025; regular second appeal dismissed; concurrent findings upheld; no substantial question of law; plaintiff failed to prove ownership of shop; sale deed No.4344 dated 16.03.1989; Om Parkash; sale deed No.10485 dated 14.08.1986; Khasra No.800; Devi Daya Verma; sale deed No.9320 dated 09.08.1989; sale deed No.2692 dated 05.11.1990; ₹4,000 consideration; rent ₹1,400 per month; declaration and permanent injunction; suit qua defendant No.2 dismissed 29.08.2013 munadi fee; Vikrant Rana advocate.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal was dismissed and pending applications, if any, stand disposed off. ¶30

Baldev Dass Vs Subhash and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal was dismissed and pending applications, if any, stand disposed off.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as well as for permanent injunction (Prohibitory) as prayed for? +5 more

¶18

Court's answer

Both Courts concurrently found that the plaintiff-appellant failed to prove ownership of the suit property: the sale deed dated 16.03.1989 conveyed fifteen and a half Marlas (a share, not a specific portion), he sold 365 square yards out of the land purchased, no cogent evidence of construction of the shop was led, and learned counsel could point to no evidence on the record even remotely suggesting the appellant's ownership.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant was unable to point out any evidence on the record to even remotely suggest that the plaintiff-appellant was the owner of the suit property.

¶29

Key takeaways

No fault can be found with the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts; no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present case requiring determination by this Court, and the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed with pending applications, if any, disposed of.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal — RSA-119-1998-2022 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Alka Sarin, J.), decided 21.01.2025 — Appeal DISMISSED. Plaintiff-appellant Baldev Dass had sought declaration of ownership of a disputed shop and permanent injunction, tracing title through Om Parkash vide registered sale deed No.4344 dated 16.03.1989, and claimed the shop was let to defendant-respondent No.3 at ₹1,400 per month. The Trial Court (judgment/decree 12.05.2015) and First Appellate Court (judgment/decree 04.11.2019) concurrently held that he failed to prove ownership: the 1989 deed conveyed fifteen and a half Marlas — a share, not a specific portion — he had sold 365 square yards, and no cogent evidence of constructing the shop was produced. Defendant-respondent No.1 claimed the shop stood on part of Khasra No.800 bought from Devi Daya Verma (sale deed No.9320 dated 09.08.1989) and that he bought the shop itself vide sale deed No.2692 dated 05.11.1990 for ₹4,000, letting it to defendant-respondent No.3 in 2001. The High Court found no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, upheld the concurrent findings and dismissed the appeal; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

119 RSA-1998-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.01.2025

¶3

BALDEV DASS .... Appellant

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

SUBHASH AND ORS .... Respondents

¶6

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶7

Present : Mr. Vikrant Rana, Advocate for the appellant.

¶8

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

¶9

The present regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant challenging the judgments and decrees dated 12.05.2015 and 04.11.2019 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, respectively.

¶10

Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffappellant herein filed the present suit seeking a decree for declaration to the effect that he is owner of the shop in dispute and that the defendantrespondents have no concern with the ownership rights of the said shop. Further a decree of permanent injunction was also sought. It was the case set up by the plaintiff-appellant that he had purchased the suit property from one Om Parkash vide registered sale deed No.4344 dated 16.03.1989. Om Parkash was the owner of the suit property by virtue of sale deed No.10485 dated 14.08.1986. It was further the case set up that the plaintiff-appellant had raised construction over the purchased property in the year 1989 and

¶11

AMAN JAIN 2025.01.22 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶12

119 RSA-1998-2022 (O&M) -2-

¶13

given it to the defendant-respondent No.3 on rent @ ₹1,400 per month. It was further averred that defendant-respondent No.3 was not paying the rent and defendant-respondents No.1 and 2 are relatives of defendant-respondent No.3 and they in collusion with each other were trying to defeat the rights of the plaintiff-appellant. Hence, the present suit.

¶14

The suit was contested by defendant-respondent No.1 in which he raised various preliminary objections qua maintainability. On merits it was averred that the plaintiff-appellant had no right, title or interest in the suit property and that defendant-respondent No.1 was the lawful owner in possession of the shop in dispute which was constructed on a part of the plot comprised in Khasra No.800. It was further the case set up that defendantrespondent No.1 had purchased the property measuring 1 Marla out of Khasra No.800 from its previous owner, namely, Devi Daya Verma son of Roop Chand Verma who was recorded owner in possession of the same in the revenue records pursuant to the sale deed No.9320 dated 09.08.1989. It was further averred that the shop in dispute was purchased by defendantrespondent No.1 vide sale deed No.2692 dated 05.11.1990 for a consideration of ₹4,000 (rupees four thousand) and thereafter the shop was constructed and let out to defendant-respondent No.3 in the year 2001. It was further the stand taken that sale deed dated 16.03.1989 does not relate to the plot underneath the disputed shop. Neither the plaintiff-appellant nor Om Parkash was in occupation in any capacity of the plot on which the shop had been constructed. Suit qua defendant-respondent No.2 was dismissed vide

¶15

AMAN JAIN 2025.01.22 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶16

119 RSA-1998-2022 (O&M) -3-

¶17

order dated 29.08.2013 as munadi fee was not deposited for service of summons. Defendant-respondent No.3 filed a separate written statement. 4. Replication was not filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :

¶18

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as well as for permanent injunction (Prohibitory) as prayed for ? OPP

¶19

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

¶20

Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by her own act and conduct ? OPD

¶21

Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD

¶22

Relief.

¶23

The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.05.2015 dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellant which appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 04.11.2019. Hence, the present regular second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant.

¶24

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that

¶25

the plaintiff-appellant had proved his ownership over the suit property. It is further the contention that the shop had been constructed over an area of 45 square yards and that defendant-respondent No.1 owns only 30 square yards area which he had purchased vide sale deed dated 05.11.1990.

¶26

Heard.

¶27

AMAN JAIN 2025.01.22 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶28

119 RSA-1998-2022 (O&M) -4-

¶29

In the present case both the Courts concurrently found that the plaintiff-appellant had failed to prove that he is owner of the suit property although it was the case set up by the plaintiff-appellant that he had purchased the property from one Om Parkash vide sale deed dated 16.03.1989. However, as per the contents of the said sale deed the plaintiffappellant had purchased fifteen and a half Marlas of land. The plaint itself was totally silent qua this aspect. It was further found by both the Courts that the plaintiff-appellant had not purchased a specific portion but had purchased a share from Om Parkash. It has further come in the crossexamination of the plaintiff-appellant himself that out of the land purchased by him, he sold 365 square yards. Even qua the construction of the shop there was no cogent evidence led by the plaintiff-appellant. Infact, in his cross-examination the plaintiff-appellant stated that he had no information as to whether any Municipal Unit Number had been allotted to the shop or not. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has not been able to point out any evidence on the record to even remotely suggest that the plaintiff-appellant was the owner of the suit property.

¶30

In view thereof, no fault can be found with the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present case which requires determination by this Court. The appeal, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶31

21.01.2025 (ALKA SARIN) Aman Jain JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶32

AMAN JAIN 2025.01.22 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgments and decrees dated 12.05.2015 (Trial Court) and 04.11.2019 (First Appellate Court) dismissing the plaintiff's suit and his first appeal, challenged in this regular second appeal¶9
First Appellate Court (judgment and decree dated 04.11.2019), together with the Trial Court judgment and decree dated 12.05.2015 · 04.11.2019
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff-appellant filed suit seeking declaration that he is owner of the disputed shop (defendants having no concern with ownership rights) and permanent injunction¶10
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff-appellant claimed purchase of the suit property from Om Parkash vide registered sale deed No.4344 dated 16.03.1989¶10
Prior proceeding
Om Parkash was claimed to be owner of the suit property by virtue of sale deed No.10485 dated 14.08.1986¶10
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff-appellant claimed to have raised construction over the purchased property in 1989¶10
Prior proceeding
Shop allegedly given to defendant-respondent No.3 on rent @ ₹1,400 per month¶13
Prior proceeding
Allegation that defendant-respondent No.3 was not paying rent and defendants No.1 and 2, his relatives, were colluding to defeat the plaintiff-appellant's rights¶13
Prior proceeding
Suit contested by defendant-respondent No.1 raising preliminary objections qua maintainability; on merits he claimed lawful ownership and possession of the shop standing on part of Khasra No.800¶14
Prior proceeding
Defendant-respondent No.1 claimed purchase of 1 Marla out of Khasra No.800 from previous owner Devi Daya Verma son of Roop Chand Verma, recorded owner in revenue records, pursuant to sale deed No.9320 dated 09.08.1989¶14
Prior proceeding
Devi Daya Verma was recorded owner in possession in the revenue records pursuant to sale deed No.9320 dated 09.08.1989¶14
Prior proceeding
Disputed shop claimed to have been purchased by defendant-respondent No.1 vide sale deed No.2692 dated 05.11.1990 for ₹4,000¶14
Prior proceeding
Shop thereafter constructed by defendant-respondent No.1 and let out to defendant-respondent No.3 in 2001¶14
Prior proceeding
Defence plea that sale deed dated 16.03.1989 did not relate to the plot underneath the disputed shop and that neither the plaintiff-appellant nor Om Parkash was in occupation of that plot in any capacity¶14
Prior proceeding
Suit qua defendant-respondent No.2 dismissed vide order dated 29.08.2013 as munadi fee was not deposited for service of summons¶17
Prior proceeding
Defendant-respondent No.3 filed a separate written statement; replication was not filed; issues were framed on the pleadings¶17
Prior proceeding
Trial Court dismissed the suit with costs vide judgment and decree dated 12.05.2015¶23
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff-appellant's first appeal dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 04.11.2019¶23

Baldev Dass v. Subhash and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldev Dass v. Subhash and Ors.

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

Gurcharan Singh and Anr. Vs Baldev Kaur and Ors.

Slinder Kaur through Attorney Her Mother Namely Jasvir Kaur Vs Parminder Kumar

Nirmal Ram Vs Manjit Kaur

Rohtash Vs Sheela Devi

Ranjit Singh Alias Goldy Vs Baljit Shah and Another

Dhan Singh Alias Dhana Singh and Others Vs Hamir Kaur and Another