Harjinder Singh Vs Shiam & Ors.

Th e present Regular Second Appe a l has been filed by Harjinder Si n gh (appellant/plain t iff) against Shiam and others (defendants/responde n ts), challenging the concurrent findings of the cour t s below recorded in judgments a nd decrees dated 1 5 .02.1990 and 04.09.1993.

¶14

T h e plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunctio n to restrain the def e ndants from forcibly disposses s ing him from the disputed prop e rty i.e two taurs/pl o ts bearing No. 121 and 122, marked as ABCD in the site p lan (Exhibit P2), si t uated in the Abadi of village Ba m nara, Tehsil and District Ropa r . 3. Th e plaintiff claimed ownership a n d possession of the suit propert y on the basis of allotment by the Sales-cum-Man a ging Officer of the Rehabilita t ion Department, as s erting that he had been in poss e ssion since the allotment, using the site for tetherin g cattle and parking carts. Acco r ding to him, the defendants ha d no right or concer n with the land.

¶15

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

RSA-2521-1994 (O&M) - 2-

¶17

Th e defendants contested the suit, asserting that the plaintiff was not in possession o f the suit property, and that the p roperty had been used as bara s by them and thei r ancestors for generations. T h ey claimed possession over the disputed proper t y.

¶18

Fr o m the pleadings of the parties, t h e following issues were frame d by

¶19

the learned Trial Court:-

¶20

Whether plaintiff is owner i n possession of the suit prope r ty? O P P

¶21

Whether plaintiff is entitled t o the injunction prayed for?OP P

¶22

Whether suit is not maintain a ble in the present from? OPP

¶23

Whether suit is bad non-join d er of necessary parties? OPD 5. Whether defendants have b e come owners of the suit prop e rty by adverse possession? OPD

¶24

Whether plaintiff is stopped by his act and conduct from fi l ing the suit? OPD

¶25

Whether site plan filed by th e plaintiff is not correct? OPD

¶26

Relief.

¶27

FINDINGS OF THE COURTS BELOW

¶28

Th e learned trial court, vide imp u gned judgment and decree d a ted 15.02.1990, dis m issed the suit after appreciatin g the evidence of both sides. It h eld that although al l otment of evacuee property by t he Rehabilitation Authorities is not open to challen g e in a civil court and the plai n tiff had failed to establish that the allotted taurs/pl o ts No. 121 and 122 correspond e d with the suit property in disp u te.

¶29

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

RSA-2521-1994 (O&M) - 3-

¶31

Th e first appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, hol d ing that from the e vidence on record, it was no t proved that the plaintiff wa s in possession of t h e suit property. It observed tha t if there was any dispute regar d ing identification o f the property, the plaintiff sho u ld have approached the Custo d ian for demarcatio n of plots No. 121 and 122 an d delivery of possession. Since no such demarcati o n was sought, the suit property c ould not be conclusively identi f ied as plots No. 12 1 and 122.

¶32

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

¶33

Le a rned counsel for the appella n t/plaintiff argued that the co u rts below had relie d on conjectures and surmises i n holding that there was nothin g to show that the s u it property corresponded to pl o ts No. 121 and 122. He submi t ted that the defend a nts had admitted in their written statement that the suit prop e rty was owned by t h e plaintiff, and had pleaded ad v erse possession over it. 9. He further contended that if th e courts below held that the suit property did no t correspond with plots No. 121 and 122, they were bound to gi v e a finding as to w hich property it related to. I t was argued that the questio n of allotment by t h e Rehabilitation Department c o uld not be reopened by the c ivil court, and the c ourts had wrongly gone behin d the allotment to conclude that the property did no t match plots Nos. 121 and 122. He also submitted that the area h ad undergone sub s tantial changes between 1972 and 1987, making identifica t ion difficult.

¶34

It w as further pointed out that th e plaintiff’s father, Naurang Si n gh, had earlier file d a suit concerning plots No. 1 2 1 and 122 along with other l a nd, which was dis m issed insofar as these plots we r e concerned, holding that they h ad been allotted t o the present plaintiff. The app e llant moved an application u n der TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

RSA-2521-1994 (O&M) - 4-

¶36

Order XLI Rul e 27 read with Section 151 CP C in the present appeal to plac e on record a copy o f the judgment in Civil Suit No. 83 decided on 19.03.1987 title d as “ Naurang Sing h v. Shiam Singh and Others ”, w hich according to him was rele v ant to the controve r sy.

¶37

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

¶38

Le a rned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no illegality in th e judgments of the courts bel o w, which were based on cor r ect appreciation of evidence. He had no objection t o the application under Order X LI Rule 27 being allowed, but maintained that the a dditional document had no bea r ing on the merits o f the case.

¶39

CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT

¶40

I h ave carefully considered the ri v al submissions and examined the record. The co n current findings of the courts b elow have been rendered in a suit for permanent i njunction based on alleged po s session of plots No. 121 and 1 22. The question o f ownership was not in issue. 13. Bo t h courts rightly held that whil e allotment of evacuee propert y by the Rehabilitati o n Authorities cannot be chall e nged before a civil court, the c ore question here w as whether the suit property c o uld be identified as plots No. 121 and 122 under t h e conveyance deed (Exhibit P1 ) . 14. Th e trial Court, after appreciati n g the testimony of all witnes s es, concluded that t here was no convincing eviden c e connecting the suit property w ith conveyance de e d (Exhibit P1). The first appel l ate court rightly observed that the plaintiff ought to have sought demarcation fr om the Custodian to resolve the dispute of ident i fication.

¶41

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

RSA-2521-1994 (O&M) - 5-

¶43

Th e application under Order XL I Rule 27 to place on record the judgment in Na u rang Singh v. Shiam Singh an d Others , decided on 19.03.1987 , is allowed, as there is no objection from the respo n dents. The same is taken on re c ord as Ex.PX. How e ver, the said judgment does n o t advance the appellant’s case a s it only records th a t Naurang Singh was not the o w ner in possession of plots No. 121 and 122. This f act does not establish that th e appellant is in possession of the disputed proper t y.

¶44

Appellant/plaintiff himself admits the fact that area had underg o ne substantial cha n ge since 1972 to 1987 making identification difficult. Faced w ith this situation, t h e burden was upon appellant/pl a intiff to prove the identificatio n of property by get t ing it demarcated and connecti n g it with taurs/plots No.121-12 2 as there was not much dispute regarding allo t ment of taurs/plots No.121- 1 22. Appellant/plain t iff having failed to prove by a n y cogent and convincing evidence that suit property corresponds with plots N o .121 and 122 and that he i s in possession of t hat property, there cannot be said to be any illegality in the impugned judg m ent and decree passed by the C o urts below.

¶45

CONCLUSION

¶46

Th e findings of the courts below are based on evidence and do not suffer from per v ersity warranting interference in a Regular Second Appeal. T his Court finds no m erit in the appeal, and the sam e is hereby dismissed, affirming the judgments and d ecrees of the courts below.

¶47

Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶48

August 18, 202 5 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Wheth e r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶49

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.21 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Harjinder Singh v. Shiam & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

Harjinder Singh v. Shiam & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kulwant Rai and Ors. Vs Pargat Singh and Ors.

Fakir Singh Vs Munshi Singh Deceased Th Lrs

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Balwinder Kaur and Ors.

Bhagwan Kaur Vs Sanjiv Kumar and Anr.

Surender Singh and Ors. Vs Sukh Ram and Ors.

The Ror Maha Sabha (Regd.) Vs Kurukshetra Development Board