Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2767
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Amit Rawal, J.
Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar - Appellant
Versus
Om Parkash - Respondent
RSA No.2399 of 1989 (O&M)
Decided On : 27-03-2019
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate & Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Varan Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondents
In property disputes, the burden of proof lies with the party disputing ownership and possession, and the admissibility of additional evidence can influence the outcome of the case.
Headnote:
Municipal Corporation - Property Dispute - Punjab Municipal Act - Section 172, Section 246, Section 269, Section 396 - The court discussed the ownership and possession of the suit property, the jurisdiction of the civil court, and the definition of 'public street' under the Punjab Municipal Act. The court also considered the admissibility of additional evidence and the burden of proof in property disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two civil suits regarding ownership and possession of properties against the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar. The trial court decreed one suit and dismissed the other, but the lower appellate court reversed the decisions. The appeals were heard together to address the common question of fact.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the respondent-plaintiffs in both suits, holding that the ownership and possession of the properties were established, and the objections raised by the Municipal Corporation were not sustained. The court also ruled that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits and that the Corporation failed to prove the properties were public streets.
Issues: The issues included ownership and possession of the properties, jurisdiction of the civil court, existence of encroachment, and the definition of 'public street' under the Punjab Municipal Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof lay with the defendants to rebut the evidence of ownership and possession presented by the plaintiffs. The court also emphasized the admissibility of additional evidence and the requirement for the Corporation to establish the properties as public streets.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, affirming the decisions in favor of the respondent-plaintiffs in both civil suits.
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J. - This order of mine shall dispose of two Regular Second Appeals bearing No.2213 of 1988 and 2399 of 1989 as the common question of fact is involved.
2. RSA No.2399 of 1989 is arising out of decision rendered in Civil Suit No.340 of 1984 titled as "Om Parkash Versus Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar" (for short, Suit No.l), wherein Om Parkash had sought the declaration to be owner in possession of Plot No.3 measuring 35' x 39'2" x 41'x 427" comprised in Khasra Nos7566 and 7585 with consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar to sanction the building plan submitted by the plaintiff vide receipt dated 06.03.1981.
3. RSA No.2213 of 1988 has arisen out of decision rendered in Civil Suit No.21 of 1985 titled as "Rajinder Singh Versus Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar City and another" (for short, Suit No.2), claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into possession or demolishing the boundary wall of the plot shown red in the plan attached.
4. Suit No.l was dismissed by the trial Court, but in appeal the same was decreed, whereas Suit No.2 was decreed by the trial Court and appeal preferred by the Municipal Corporation was dismissed.
5. Vide order dated 03.11.2016, RSA No.2399 of 1989 was ordered to be heard along with RSA No.2213 of 1988, therefore, they are being heard and decided together.
6. Plaintiff, in Suit No.l, as noticed above claimed the aforementioned relief, which was disputed by the defendants on the premise that there was no actionable right and asserted that the suit property belonged to the Municipal Corporation. On the basis of the aforementioned pleadings, following issues were framed in Suit No.l:-
"1) Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the
suit property? OPP
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP
3) Whether the plaintiff has got no actionable right against the defendant? OPD
4) Relief "
7. Plaintiff, in support of the aforementioned evidence, examined three witnesses and brought on record Ex.Pl sale deed dated 27.05.1980 and Ex.P2 jamabandi for the year 1974-75 and other documents to establish the ownership. On the other hand, the defendants brought on record Map Ex.Dl and File Book Ex.D2.
8. The trial Court, in Suit No.l, rendered the finding on issue No.l against the plaintiff in the absence of proof of ownership and possession of the suit property, resulting into dismissal of the suit. The appeal preferred before the Lower Appellate Court was allowed.
9. In Suit No.2, defendants raised the objection that the site in dispute was a public street and there was encroachment, for which the plaintiff was served with a notice under Section 172 of the Punjab Municipal Act (for short, the Act). Objections qua maintainability, want of notice and jurisdiction of the civil court were also taken. The trial Court in Suit No.2 framed the following issues:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the plot in dispute? OPP
2. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit? OPP
3. Whether the boundary wall in question exists since times immemorial? OPP
4. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? OPP
5. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under section 396 of the Punjab Municipal corporation Act and under the principle of res judicata? OPP
6. Whether the site in dispute is a public street? OPD
7. Whether the site plan filed with the plaint is correct? OPP
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP
9. Relief. "
10. Plaintiff, in support of the evidence in Suit No.2, brought on record five witnesses, whereas the defendants examined six witnesses and brought on record Ex.Dl and Ex.D2.
11. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in both the appeals submitted that the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court arising out of decision rendered in Suit No.l dec
