IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, J.
Shrikant – Appellant
Versus
Usha Devi – Respondent
RSA-1424 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 15-09-2022
encroachment - Property Dispute - [Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54, Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 6, Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 3] - The court discussed the ownership of the suit property, the encroachment by the defendant, and the question of limitation. The court relied on the demarcation report and the report of the Local Commissioner to establish the encroachment. The court also addressed the argument of limitation and found it unsubstantiated.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a portion of the property claimed to be encroached by the defendant. The defendant contested the suit on various grounds including ownership and limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court decreed the suit, finding the plaintiff's ownership and the encroachment by the defendant proven. The Appellate Court upheld the decision. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit and no substantial question of law.
Issues: Ownership, encroachment, limitation, jurisdiction
Ratio Decidendi: The ownership of the suit property was established based on the sale deed and demarcation report. The encroachment was proven through the demarcation report and the report of the Local Commissioner. The argument of limitation was found unsubstantiated as it was not raised in the pleadings or at the time of arguments.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts.
JUDGMENT
Alka Sarin, J. (Oral) - The present appeal has been preferred against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for possession, permanent injunction as well as the mandatory injunction.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffrespondent filed the present suit for possession of portion having area measuring 15.87 sq. yds out of plot measuring 6 marlas being 6/19 share of Khasra No.42, Killa No.3/2/3 (0-19) situated at Village Bhapra, Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat and for recovery of use and occupation of the said plot portion @ Rs.4,000/- per month from July 2012 to the date of actual physical possession of the said portion. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff-respondent was the owner of the suit property vide sale deed bearing Vasika No.1714 dated 12.07.2012 registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Samalkha. After purchasing the suit plot, the plaintiff respondent got measurement of the plot done at the spot and it was found that the defendant-appellant had encroached upon a portion measuring 15.87 sq. yds. marked by letters ABCD out of the suit property. The plaintiffrespondent requested the defendant-appellant to handover vacant possession, however, the defendant-appellant lingered on the issue on one pretext or the other. In the month of February 2017, the defendant-appellant started proclaiming that the plaintiff-respondent had not got done the demarcation of the suit property and he had no faith on the claim of the plaintiffrespondent without demarcation of the suit plot. Accordingly, the plaintiffrespondent and her husband got demarcation of the suit plot done from the office of Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Samalkha on 12.03.2017 according to which the defendant-appellant was found to have encroached upon the portion of Khasra No.42//3/2/3 measuring 15.87 sq. yds. i.e. the suit property. Hence, the present suit. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent had not approached the Court with clean hands and had concealed the material facts from the Court. Preliminary objections were raised that the mother of the defendant-appellant had purchased land measuring 7 marlas i.e. 210 sq. yds which is 7/101 share out of 5 kanals 1 marla comprised in Khata No.99/118, Killa No.42/9/1 (5-1) situated at Bhapra, District Panipat vide sale deed bearing Vasika No.1099 dated 11.10.1990 and after the death of his mother, mutation of inheritance was sanctioned vide mutation No.1984 dated 27.01.2000 in his favour. It was further averred that he had raised construction over the same and was residing there with his family members without interruption. The pleas of the suit not being properly valued, the Court not having jurisdiction and the suit being bad for mis-joinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties, were also raised.
3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :
'1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff has not affixed the proper court fees ? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed true and material facts from the court ? OPD
4. Whether the present suit is not maintainable ? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the present suit ? OPD
7. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit ? OPD
8. Relief"
4. The Trial Court, while decreeing the suit vide judgment and decree dated 06.11.2019, returned the following finding :
'13. The present suit is for possession with regard to the alleged encroachment by the defendant measuring 15.87 sq. yds, in the total area of 180 sq. yds. The plaintiff has proved her ownership over the suit land in view of Ex. P1 placed on file. Now the factum of encroachmen
The demarcation report and the report of the Local Commissioner are crucial evidence to establish encroachment in a property dispute.
The burden of proof lies with the party alleging ownership, and sufficient evidence must be provided to establish ownership of disputed property.
Validity of demarcation report as evidence and the requirement for specific boundaries in property disputes.
Failure to prove ownership and possession over the disputed property resulted in dismissal of the appeal.
(1) Adverse Possession—Mere possession cannot be deemed to be adverse possession merely on the basis of denial of another’s title over property for that would be violative of basic rights of actual o....
Point of Law : Redemption of mortgage property – A party seeking injunction, has to prove his possession over the suit land from the date of accrual of cause of action.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.