SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 148

Supreme Court of India
A.K. PATNAIK & H. L. GOKHALE, JJ.
Nasib Kaur & Others – Appellants
Versus
Col. Surat Singh (Deceased) through L.Rs & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1276 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29198 of 2010) With Civil Appeal No. 1277 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29205 of 2010)
Decided On : 12-02-2013

Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Section 100—Title suit—In a suit for declaration of title, plaintiff had not been able to produce any evidence to prove his ownership over and possession over suit land—Appellants were in lawful possession of areas of land by virtue of two sale deeds and plaintiff had not been able to establish that he was the owner of suit land and consequently he is entitled to declaration of his title, recovery of possession and injunction—High court has made its own assessment of entire evidence as if it was first appellate court and held that plaintiff was owner of suit property and was entitled to possession—Appellants were in legal possession of suit property and High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 100 CPC could not have reversed findings of trial court and first appellate court and decreed suits—Impugned common judgment and decree of High Court set aside—Appeals allowed. (Paras 10 to 13)

       (2000) 1 SCC 434—Referred.

       (2004) 12 SCC 368—Distinguished.

Judgment :-

A.K. Patnaik, J.

Leave granted.

2. These are the appeals against the common judgment dated 11.11.2009 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in R.S.A. Nos. 2579 of 1997 and 2482 of 2008 by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.

3. The facts very briefly are that Col. Surat Singh filed Civil Suit No.735-T on 18.04.1987 for declaration that the plaintiff was the owner and was in possession of suit land. The plaintiff’s case in the suit was that while he was in joint holding of some land, he sold 2 bighas and 16 biswas of land out of his share without specifying any khasra nos. to Col. Girdhar Singh and his family members (defendant nos. 1 to 4) and thereafter defendant nos. 1 to 4 sold the land in pieces to defendant nos. 5 to 8 in the suit specifying the khasra nos. and mutation nos. 1120 and 1174. As the plaintiff did not sell the land specifying the khasra nos. to Col. Girdhar Singh and his son, they had no right to sell specific pieces of land with specific khasra nos. The plaintiff’s further case in the plaint was that the specific khasra nos. which had been mutated in favour of defendant nos. 3, 4 and 5 were not in accordance with the registered sale deed in favour of Col. Girdhar Singh and his family members. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 did not contest the suit, whereas defendant Nos. 5 to 8 appeared and filed their written statements. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed issues and by its judgment and decree dated 20.02.2004 found that the areas of land sold under the sale deed dated 17.07.1978 by the plaintiff was less by 1 Biswas than the area in the mutation entries and similarly the area of land sold by the plaintiff as Attorney of Nanak Singh was less than the area shown in the mutation entries. The trial court, therefore, ordered for correction of the mutation entries, but directed that the corrections to be carried out would have no effect as regards the possession of the suit property, which has to continue as before and would be liable to be changed as and when any partition proceeding is effected between the co-sharers. Col. Surat Singh filed an appeal C.A. No. 1721 on 20.03.2004 before the Additional District Judge, Patiala, but by judgment and decree dated 18.03.2008 the Additional District Judge, Patiala, dismissed the appeal.

4. Col. Surat Singh also filed Civil Suit No. 148-T on 09.03.1987 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction on the suit property or alienating the same in any manner whatsoever. The plaintiff’s case in the suit was that he sold 2 bighas and 16 biswas of land out of the joint holding of his own share without specifying any khasra nos. to one Col. Girdhar Singh and his son on 17.07.1978 and Col. Girdhar Singh has thus become a co-sharer to the extent of 2 bighas and 16 biswas in his joint holding of the property. Col. Girdhar Singh, however, did not file any partition proceedings seeking partition of his share out of the joint holding. Thereafter, Col. Girdhar Singh sold the share to the extent of 2 bighas and 16 biswas of land to the defendants in February, 1987 and the defendants are now threatening to raise a new construction near the farm house of the plaintiff in a place of their choice on the plea that they had purchased the land without specific khasra nos. from Col. Girdhar Singh. The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement and their plea in the written statement inter alia was that their predecessor-in-interest (Col. Girdhar Singh and his son) had purchased the suit property from the plaintiff and his uncle, Nanak Singh, vide sale deeds dated 17.07.1978 and 19.07.1979 and the plaintiff has himself delivered possession of the property purchased by their predecessor-in-interest without khasra nos. Their further plea in the written statement was that Col. Girdhar Singh had constructed his kothi and quarters and planted Eucalyptus trees on the suit property and the plaintiff has not













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top