Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 1656
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
Shimla Rani and another – Appellant
Versus
Manoranjan @ Manoranjana Randhawa – Respondent
RSA No. 297 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 12-12-2017
For the Appellant :Ms. Puja Chopra, Advocate.
Entries in revenue records raise rebuttable presumption, and failure to substantiate ownership claims can lead to dismissal of the case.
Headnote:
possession - property dispute - - The court discussed the sale deed, general power of attorney, revenue records, and demarcation report to establish the plaintiff's ownership of the disputed property. The court also highlighted the legal principle that entries in revenue records raise rebuttable presumption and the failure of the defendants to substantiate their claim of ownership.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a house and permanent injunction against the defendants, alleging that they had encroached upon her plot. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, which was upheld by the appellate court, leading to the defendants filing a second appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had proved her ownership of the plot through the sale deed, general power of attorney, and revenue records. The defendants' claim of ownership was not substantiated, and their appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
Issues: The issues involved the plaintiff's entitlement to possession and permanent injunction, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, locus standi to file the suit, maintainability of the suit, and jurisdiction of the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the proof of ownership provided by the plaintiff through legal documents and revenue records. It emphasized the rebuttable presumption raised by entries in revenue records and the failure of the defendants to substantiate their claim of ownership.
Final Decision: The second appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
1. The present appeal is at the behest of the defendants being aggrieved of the plaintiff's suit for possession and consequential relief of permanent injunction being decreed by the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their original position in the civil suit.
3. The facts, as stated in the plaint, are that a suit for possession of house comprised in khewat/khata No. 422/658 bearing khasra No. 8799/8347/7934/2607 (0-10) situated within the revenue estate of village Banur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, and suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, transferring or raising any type of construction in the suit land, was filed.
4. The plaintiff was a house wife and her husband had retired from Indian Army as a Colonel. The plot in question was previously owned by Shri Ram Lal, who sold the same to Shri Harminder Singh vide sale deed dated 02.08.1985. Harminder Singh executed a power of attorney on 16.11.1987 in favour of Shri Sukhbir Singh Randhawa. The general power of attorney of Harminder Singh executed a sale deed dated 12.06.1997 in favour of the plaintiff. Since then, the plaintiff was stated to be owner of the plot. It was alleged that the defendants were members of land grabbing gang, who colluded with Jaswinder Singh and Nirmal Singh and got prepared a false and fabricated agreement to sell dated 27.08.2003 from one Harvinder Kaur. It was stated that neither Harvinder Kaur nor the defendants had any right or title with the plot. The agreement to sell was prepared in favour of Shimla Rani (defendant No.1). It was stated that the plaintiff resided along with her husband at various places due to job limitation and could not look after the plot. It was stated that the plaintiff became owner of the plot on 12.06.1997. Prior to that, her husband Sukhbir Singh Randhawa was in physical possession of the plot. In the year 2005, when the plaintiff along with her husband went to Banur to look after the plot, they saw that there was no vacant plot and Shimla Rani had encroached upon the plot and constructed two rooms. An application was moved for demarcation before Tehsildar, Rajpura. The property was demarcated. FIR No. 109 dated 20.08.2005 was registered against Shimla Rani. When the plaintiff asked for possession, the defendants filed a suit for permanent injunction against the husband of the plaintiff, but later on the same was withdrawn. On threat from the defendants to sell the plot, the suit was filed.
5. On notice, the defendants filed written statement raising preliminary objections. On merits, the defendants denied the sale of said plot to Harminder Singh and execution of general power of attorney in favour of Sukhbir Singh Randhawa. It was stated that the defendants owned the said plot and previously, it was owned and possessed by Shri Tota Ram since 1947. Tota Ram was father of defendant No.2 and father-in-law of defendant No.1. It was stated that the defendants have inherited the suit property from Tota Ram and they have electric connection, telephone connection and even the ration card at the address of the said plot. It was denied that any demarcation was ever done.
6. The learned trial court framed the following issues :-
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for possession of house as described in the heading of the plaint? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder and non joinder of necessary parties? OPD
4. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
6. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? OPD
7. Relief.
7. In order to support her suit, the plaintiff appeared as PW.1. Sukhbir Singh appeared as PW.2. Darshan Singh registry clerk and Darshan Kumar Sansodhia Deed Writer appeared as PW.3
