2015 Supreme(P&H) 809
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rajiv Narain Raina, J.
Uma Singla and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Chhachhrauli Harijan Co-op & Farming Soc. Ltd. and Ors. - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 1062 of 2010 (O&M)
Decided On : 21-05-2015
For the Appellant :C.B. Goel, Advocate
For the Respondents:G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate
Headnote:
land dispute - East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 - 21, 44 - The judgment discusses the ownership and possession of a piece of land falling within the municipal limits of Chhachhrauli, District Yamunanagar. The court analyzed the evidence, including oral and documentary evidence, to determine the ownership and possession of the disputed land. The court also examined the provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, and its implications on the case. The judgment highlights the importance of revenue records, consolidation proceedings, and the burden of proof in establishing ownership and possession of the land.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute relates to a piece of land measuring 3138 square yards within the municipal limits of Chhachhrauli, District Yamunanagar. The plaintiff-society sought a permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering in their possession of the land. The defendants claimed ownership and possession of the land through a sale deed executed in 1972.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court protected the plaintiff-society by a permanent injunction but excluded the land under possession of the defendants. The first appeal court set aside the trial court's judgment, holding that the plaintiff-society was the exclusive owner in possession of the land and ordered the removal of encroachments made during the pendency of the suit.
Issues: The main issue was to determine the ownership and possession of the disputed land. The court also considered the validity of the mandatory injunction and the report of the local commissioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of revenue records, consolidation proceedings, and the burden of proof in establishing ownership and possession of the land. It also highlighted the limitations of a local commissioner's report in determining the rights to the property.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, endorsing the reasoning of the first appeal court and upholding the judgment in favor of the plaintiff-society.
1. This is defendants' second appeal. The dispute relates to a piece of land measuring 3138 square yards falling within the municipal limits of Chhachhrauli, District Yamunanagar as described in the written statement. The property once vested in Raja Himmat Sher Singh of erstwhile Kalsia State who was owner of the plot. During the minority of the Raja, the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala was appointed as his guardian vide order of the Guardian Court dated 6th August, 1971 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Ambala in case titled Collector, Ambala v. General Public. Shri Prem Sarup was appointed as Administrator of the estate of the minor Ruler of Kalsia and acting on behalf of the Collector, Ambala sold 3138 square yards out of the total suit property to the 1st defendant Jasmer Kaur wife of Tejinder Singh vide sale deed dated 24.7.1972 for a consideration of Rs. 5,400/-. The possession was delivered to the vendees on the spot and Jasmer Kaur and her husband Tejinder Singh, the 1st and 2nd defendants became owners in possession of the suit property. The plot in question was earlier declared as one of the private properties of the Ruler of Kalsia and Nalagarh as per Government letter No. P.PC/71/05-P dated 20th April, 1949 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, PEPSU, Patiala. The list of private properties attached with the order contained the suit property purchased by the 2nd defendant which was known as feelkhana [Elephant house]. Jasmer Kaur and Tejinder Singh (presently dead) had in their lifetime sink a tubewell and erected cow-sheds on a part of the property, some portion of which was leased out by them to the 3rd defendant, namely, Suresh and another person who have constructed their house in the portion leased out to them. The assessment register in the Municipal Committee, Chhachhrauli records Jasmer Kaur as owner in possession of the property. The adjoining land housed the Chhachhrauli Harijan Cooperative and Farming Society Limited, Chhachharauli falling in land bearing khewat No. 670 min, Khatauni No. 872, Khasra No. 138/1 comprising 27K-14M of land situate in the revenue estate of village Chhachhrauli, District Yamunanagar.
2. When disputes erupted with the neighbours the Society acting through Som Nath vide resolution dated 4th July, 1999 instituted Civil Suit No. 1130 of 5th November, 1997/25th October, 2005 praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the five defendants arrayed in the suit including Tejinder Singh and Jasmer Kaur as 1st and 2nd defendants whose names were deleted by Court order after their death pending litigation. The Society prayed for a restraint order against the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the land of the plaintiff-Society as described in the plaint.
3. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statements. The statement of their case in brief with respect to land measuring 3138 square yards has been narrated above. Parties went to trial on the 5 issues struck by court, of which, issues No. 1 and 3 were material to the adjudication of the trial on the moot point as to who was owner in possession of the suit property and whether plaintiff or the 1st defendant and other defendants claiming through Jasmer Kaur defendant No. 2. There is no doubt that the feelkhana measuring 3138 square yards is integrated with the suit property as described in the plaint, upon which, the suit was filed.
4. It was the case of the plaintiff-Society that during the pendency of the suit filed in 1997, that the defendants had encroached over a portion of the suit property over which they had no right, title or interest. Therefore, a decree for mandatory injunction was also sought directing the defendants to remove structures built on the portion of the disputed property. To the contrary it was the case of the defendants that out of khasra No. 138/1, 3138 square yards land was owned and possessed by the defendants through the sale