Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.
Wazir Singh and others - Appellants
Vs.
Mange Ram and others - Respondents
RSA No.2871 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 06-10-2016
Impleadment - Property Dispute - Indian Evidence Act 1872, Section 90 - The judgment discusses the ownership and possession of a suit property based on a registered sale deed dated 19.08.1974. The court found that the mutation of inheritance entered in favor of the appellants was wrongly done and the respondent-plaintiff was the owner of the suit property. The court also held that the sale deed being a registered document was admissible in evidence and the onus was on the appellants to rebut its correctness, which they failed to do. The court dismissed the appeal and did not interfere with the finding of fact that the respondent-plaintiff was in possession of the suit property.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute where the respondent-plaintiff sought a decree of declaration and permanent injunction for a suit property based on a registered sale deed dated 19.08.1974. The appellants-defendants claimed ownership and possession of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent-plaintiff was the owner of the suit property based on the registered sale deed and that the mutation of inheritance in favor of the appellants was wrongly done. The court dismissed the appeal and did not interfere with the finding of fact that the respondent-plaintiff was in possession of the suit property.
Issues: The issues included the ownership and possession of the suit property, the validity of the mutation in favor of the appellants, adverse possession, limitation, and maintainability of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Indian Evidence Act 1872, Section 90, and held that the registered sale deed was admissible in evidence and the onus was on the appellants to rebut its correctness, which they failed to do. The court also considered the possession of the parties and found that the respondent-plaintiff was in possession of the suit property.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and did not interfere with the finding of fact that the respondent-plaintiff was the owner and in possession of the suit property.
Amol Rattan Singh, J.
CM No.7737-C of 2016
By this application, the legal representatives of respondents no.4 and 6, are sought to be impleaded in their place as respondents, in view of the fact that both the aforesaid respondents, i.e. Smt. Parwati, respondent no.4 and Smt. Chandro, respondent no.6, are stated to have died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Courts below.
Consequently, deletion of the names of the aforesaid respondents has also been prayed for.
Though normally, notice would be issued to the other respondents in such application, however, since eventually the appeal itself is being dismissed, as would be seen, I see no reason to disallow the application. Consequently, the application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions and the persons named in paragraph no.3 as the legal heirs of respondents no.4 and 6 respectively, are ordered to be impleaded in their place and the memo of parties annexed with the appeal, is accepted as it is, since it is already reflecting the names of legal heirs of both respondents no.4 and 6, at the relevant place.
RSA No. 2871 of 2016
1. This is the second appeal filed by the sons/legal representatives of the first defendant, in a suit filed by respondent no.1 herein, Mange Ram (hereinafter to be referred to as “the plaintiff”), seeking a decree of declaration and permanent injunction, in respect of the suit property which the respondent-plaintiff claimed to be owner in possession of, after a registered sale-deed dated 19.08.1974 was executed in his favour by the original owner thereof, one Devi Chand (grand-father of the present appellants-defendants).
The plaintiff further sought a correction in the revenue entries so as to reflect his name as the owner in possession of the suit property, and yet further, he prayed that a mutation, bearing no.525, entered in the revenue record in favour of the appellants-defendants, be also declared to be null and void.
The suit having been decreed in favour of the plaintiff and the first appeal filed by the present appellants-defendants having been dismissed, the present second appeal has come to be filed.
2. As per the case set up by the plaintiff, he and the grand-father of the present appellants, (father of the original defendant no.1, Sher Singh, now deceased), were both permanent residents of village Santokhpura, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. The grand-father, Devi Chand, is stated to have executed a registered sale-deed, bearing no.564, on 19.08.1974, in respect of 8 marlas of land, in favour of the plaintiff, for a sale consideration of Rs.400/-. The possession of the suit property was also stated to have been handed over to the plaintiff by Devi Chand.
Hence, it was contended in the suit, that the appellants defendants had no concern with the suit property after that, and in fact, though the plaintiff used to serve in Delhi, the Halqa Patwari had eventually entered mutation no.459 in favour of the plaintiff, upon the plaintiffs' application, as also pursuant to having received a notice regarding the sale of the suit property from the office of the Sub-Registrar.
However, thereafter, that mutation was cancelled by the Halqa Patwari without giving any notice to the plaintiff and instead mutation no.525 was entered in favour of the defendants, they being the sons, daughters and grand children of Devi Chand.
It was contended that since notice had not been issued to the plaintiff, he had no knowledge of the mutation till 16.01.2005, when he visited the village and the first appellant herein, Wazir Singh, expressed his desire to purchase the suit property from the plaintiff, which the plaintiff refused.
Thereafter, allegedly, the first appellant-defendant also threatened the plaintiff, and only thereafter the plaintiff came into knowledge of the mutation of inheritance entered in favour of the defendants.
It was further contended that the defendants tried to take forcible possession of the suit property and to alienate it,
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
