2024:PHHC:006149

RSA-5766-2017 (O&M) - 1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

106

RSA-5766-2017 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 16.01.2024.

Santokh Singh

...Appellant.

Versus

Ranjit Singh

....Respondent.

***

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

----

Present:

Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant.

****

Sukhvinder Kaur

, J.

CM-15266-C-2017

Prayer made in the application is for condonation of delay of 25

days in re-filing of the appeal.

Keeping in view the averments made in the application the

delay of 25 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

Main case

The instant Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the

appellant/ defendant against the concurrent findings recorded by both the

Courts below vide which suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

2.

Brief facts of the case as per plaint are that the parties are

residing at village Mankya, Tehsil and District Panchkula. Plaitiff is owner

in physical possession of Gair Mumkin Bara as detailed in the head note of

the plaint. The entries were incorporated in the revenue record in favour of

the plaintiff regarding the suit land on the basis of Mutation No.1931.

KOMAL

2024.01.19 15:50

I attest to the accuracy

of this document

2024:PHHC:006149

RSA-5766-2017 (O&M) - 2-

Earlier suit land was owned by Garibu and after his death, the same was

inherited by the plaintiff and Mutation No.1931 was sanctioned in his

favour. It has been alleged that the defendant has no right, title or interest in

the suit land, but he is threatening to interfere in the peaceful possession of

the plaintiff over the suit land and on 19.05.2013, he attempted to

dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. But with the timely intervention

of the plaintiff and other respectable of the locality, he could not succeed.

3.

The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.03.2016,

decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved against the same the

defendant/appellant filed the appeal before the First Appellate Court, which

was dismissed, vide judgment dated 10.01.2017. So, now the

defendant/appellant has knocked the doors of this Court by way of filing the

present Regular Second Appeal.

4.

Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has contended that

both the Court below have ignored the fact that the suit land was purchased

by Ajmer Singh, the father of the appellant/defendant, from Shamsher Singh

son of Narata Singh, who was grandson of Gribu, on 27.07.1986, for a sale

consideration of Rs.2,000/-. Said Garibu died on 09.01.1980 but the suit

land kept standing in his name in the revenue record. Taking the undue

advantage of the same respondent/plaintiff forged and fabricated a Will

alleged to be executed by Garibu regarding the suit land in his favour and

got sanctioned the mutation on the basis of the alleged Will in his name,

after 32 years of death of Garibu and thereafter, he filed a suit for permanent

injunction. He has contended that the plaintiff is well aware of the fact that

the appellant/defendant is in possession over the suit land since 1986. He

KOMAL

2024.01.19 15:50

I attest to the accuracy

of this document

2024:PHHC:006149

RSA-5766-2017 (O&M) - 3-

has also submitted that the appellant/ defendant has proved his possession

over the suit land by leading the oral evidence and by producing writing

dated 27.07.1986 as Ex.DW3/2 vide which the suit property was purchased

and possession was taken by Ajmer Singh, father of the appellant/defendant.

Besides that he has also proved on record mark A-1 to D-1, photographs of

the suit land and Mark E-1, photocopy of bill dated 02.08.2012 regarding

purchase of bricks for raising boundary wall over the suit land. He has

submitted that all these documents have been wrongly ignored by the Courts

bel