Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 688
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Amita Devi and Another - Appellants - Appellant
Versus
Sankta Parsad Tiwari - Respondent - Respondent
RSA-1535 of 2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 04-08-2023
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Possession Disputes
Act Referred
Headnote
Possession - Property Dispute - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Sale Deed - Mutation - Partition - Demarcation Report
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a plot claiming to have purchased it from the original owner. The defendant contested, claiming to have acquired the property through a subsequent sale deed. The Courts decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the plaintiff's suit for possession was valid, rejecting the defendant's arguments regarding mutation, limitation period, and the need for a suit for partition. The demarcation report was also deemed irrelevant to the case.
Issues: Validity of plaintiff's claim for possession, relevance of mutation and limitation period, requirement for a suit for partition, and the significance of the demarcation report.
Ratio Decidendi: The ownership of the property is transferred by way of sale deed, and failure to get the land mutated is not relevant. The plaintiff's suit for possession was within the limitation period, and there was no need for a suit for partition as the property was in the form of residential plots. The demarcation report did not affect the plaintiff's claim for possession.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the Courts' decrees in favor of the plaintiff were upheld.
Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate & Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate Mr. Shubham Chaudhary, Advocate Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate for respondent.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. The correctness of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below are challenged in this appeal by the defendants. The plaintiff’s suit for grant of decree of possession of the plot has been decreed. While filing the suit, the plaintiff claimed the possession of the plot with the following demarcation and description of the property with reference to the property of owners located on four directions:-
| “East: | Gali 18’ wide | side 37’- 6” |
| West: | Land of others, now house of Sanjeev |
|
| North: | Gali Sare Aam 16’ wide | side 30’- 0” |
| South: | Land of Indraj Singh Singh etc now house of Bijender |
side 30’- 0” |
2. The plaintiff claims that he has purchased 125 square yards of land from Indraj Singh son of Sh. Pirthi Singh, who was admittedly the owner of the property. The defendant contested the suit while stating that the same Sh. Indraj Singh had sold the property measuring 130 square yards in favour of Smt. Bala Rani vide sale deed dated 03.12.1999. Thereafter, the aforesaid Smt. Bala Rani transferred 77 square yard plot to the defendant vide sale deed dated 17.06.2014. Both the Courts have decreed the suit.
3. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook as well as copies of all the three sale deeds, which have been produced by the learned counsel representing the parties.
4. It is not in dispute that the vendor of the plaintiff as well as predecessor of the defendant is same. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is prior in time.
5. The learned counsel representing the defendant contends that the plaintiff never got mutation of the sale deed entered in his favour and he has failed to produce evidence to prove his prior possession. He further submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff after a passage of 20 years from the sale deed is barred by time and the plaintiff does not challenge the validity of sale deed in favour of the defendant. In the end, he submits that the plaintiff should have filed a suit for possession by way of partition because the khata of Sh. Indraj Singh was joint.
6. This Court has considered the submissions, while analyzing the arguments of the learned counsel representing the parties.
7. As regards the first argument, it may be noted that mutation is merely an entry in the revenue record, which reflects the factum of transfer of property, however, the ownership is transferred by way of sale deed. Hence, failure on the part of the plaintiff to get the land mutated in his favour would not be relevant.
8. With regard to the second argument, it may be noted that the plaintiff has filed a suit for possession on the basis of the ownership. He has averred that he was dispossessed on 21.12.2014. In any case, an owner can file a suit for possession as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 till the time, the defendant proves his title by way of the adverse possession. Hence, there is no substance in the argument of the learned counsel with regard to the limitation period. Moreover, this was never taken up before the Courts below.
9. With respect to the argument No.3, it may be noted that the plaintiff has not challenged the correctness of the sale in favour of the defendant. These are two independent sale deeds. The plaintiff is seeking possession of the property purchased by him through the sale deed dated 07.04.1995. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel representing the parties has compared the description of the property from the sale deed as well as the plaint. The suit has been filed with respect to the property which was purchased by the plaintiff.
10. The last argument of the learned counsel representing the appellants is with regard to the requirement of the plaintiff to file a suit for partition.
