Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2042
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
H.S. Madaan, J.
Gram Panchayat, Fajalwas - Appellant
Versus
Ram Narayan And Others - Respondent
RSA-3817-2013(O&M)
Decided On : 04-04-2019
Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the Appellant.; Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for the Respondent.
The documentary evidence under the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act 1961 was crucial in determining ownership rights and supporting the plaintiffs' claim.
Headnote:
Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act 1961 - Ownership Dispute - Section 7, Section 2(g)(viii), Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership in agricultural land. Trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court partly decreed it. Defendant appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the appellate court's judgment was well-reasoned, based on proper evidence appraisal and interpretation of law. The documentary evidence of previous orders under the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act 1961 was crucial in fortifying the plaintiffs' claim.
Issues: Ownership declaration, permanent injunction, locus standi, cause of action, jurisdiction, false and frivolous suit, clean hands
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court's judgment was upheld as it correctly considered the documentary evidence under the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act 1961, which supported the plaintiffs' claim of ownership.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the appellate court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
JUDGMENT
H.S. Madaan, J. - Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Sultan and 15 others, total 16 in number, had filed a suit against Gram Panchayat, Fajalwas, Tehsil and District Gurgaon (now Gurugram) seeking a declaration that plaintiffs No.l to 9 are owners in possession to the extent of 1/2 share, whereas plaintiffs No. 10 to 16 are owners in possession to the extent of 1/2 share in the agricultural land measuring 12 kanals 4 marlas situated at village Fajal was, Tehsil & District Gurugram, on the averments that entries in column of ownership in the name of defendant are wrong and liable to be rectified in the names of the plaintiffs; that as a matter of fact the defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit property; further the competent authority as per Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act 1961 had already declared that the land in question is not shalmat-deh and does not vest in the defendant; that it was so done vide orders dated 25.6.1996 and 2.2.1993.
2. On notice the defendant appeared and filed a written statement raising various legal objections challenging the locus standi of the plaintiffs to bring the suit further contending that no cause of action arose to them to do so and the suit so filed was liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; that the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit; that the suit was not maintainable; that another suit titled as 'Ishwar Singh etc. Vs. Gram Panchayat, Fazalwas' was pending in the Court of Collector, Gurgaon regarding the same cause of action between the same parties; that the plaintiffs had not approached the Court with clean hands. On merits, the defendant denied the material assertions in the plaint while praying for dismissal of the suit.
3. The plaintiffs had filed replication controverting the allegations in the written statement whereas reiterating the averments in the plaint.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for declaration as prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.
4. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.
5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to file the present suit? OPD.
6. Whether the suit is false and frivolous? OPD.
7. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands? OPD.
8. Relief.
5. Both the parties have led evidence in respect of their claims.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court decided issues No.l and 2 against the plaintiffs, issues No.3 to 7 against the defendants. Resultantly, suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. This was so done vide judgment and decree dated 7.1.2012.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs had filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Gurgaon which was assigned to Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, who vide judgment and decree dated 24.5.2013 accepted the appeal and suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed to the effect that revenue entries in the name of plaintiffs are liable to be corrected showing them owners as co-sharers in possession i.e. plaintiffs No.l to 9 to the extent of 1/2 share and plaintiffs No. 10 to 16 to the extent of remaining half share in the suit property. Further the defendant was restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land or from alienating the same. However, the claim of the plaintiffs for declaration of ownership on the basis of adverse possession was rejected. The suit was partly decreed with costs. Now it was the turn of the defendant Gram Panchayat to feel dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Gurugram and it has knocked at the door of this Court by way of filing regular second appeal praying that the same be accepted, the impugned judgm
