Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 3665
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Deepak Gupta, J
DHARAMBIR – Appellant
Versus
PUSHAP RAJ SINGH & ANR. – Respondent
COCP-840-2003 (O&M)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: No names provided
For the Respondents: No names provided
Possession grants legal protection even in disputes over ownership, clarifying that interference requires lawful authority.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act - Establishment of ownership through long possession - Courts must recognize settled possession even in ownership disputes - Legal principle established that the claimant in possession is protected against unlawful dispossession without due process. (Paras 8-11)
(B) Evidence - Lack of evidence to substantiate claim of ownership by defendants - Burden of proof rests on the party claiming ownership, and mere allegation is insufficient. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed ownership of a plot based on a historic arbitral award (Salsi Faisla) establishing possession since 1946. The defendants claimed encroachment but failed to present evidence of title.
Findings of Court:
The court held that possession is established and must be protected, stating that defendants could not disturb this possession without due process.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the legal recognition of possession, the burden of proof regarding ownership, and the implications of the Salsi Faisla.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that possession grants entitlement to protection even in disputes regarding ownership, reinforcing that unauthorized interference is unlawful.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the lower courts' decisions are set aside. The plaintiff is granted permanent injunction against interference.
Sarita Rani father acquired ownership by way of a Salsi Faisla (arbitral award) dated 21.05.1946 (Ex. P1) entered into with the then owner, and that a#er his father’s death, he has con%nued in uninterrupted and hos%le possession. The property was later included within municipal limits and has been assessed to house tax, which he has regularly paid. He further states that in October 1993, he submi,ed a building plan to the defendants, but when no sanc%on was received, he raised construc%on himself. He asserts that the defendants have no authority to interfere with his peaceful possession.
4. The defendants, in their wri,en statement, denied plain%ff’s locus standi and ownership. They alleged that the plain%ff had encroached upon their land measuring 70’-6” x 35’-6” in Bhim Sain Colony, Chandawli Gate, near Old Octroi Post, Ballabgarh, and had raised unauthorized con- struc%on. They disputed the boundaries given in the plaint and also denied knowledge of the Salsi Faisla. It was further pleaded that the plain%ff’s build- ing plan, submi,ed on 05.10.1993, had been rejected on 23.10.1993 (Ex. D8) upon verifica%on by the Patwari, and that no%ce of demoli%on had been served.
5. The trial Court held that although the plain%ff was found to be in possession, it was unauthorized, and the defendants had already ini%ated proceedings under the Municipal Corpora%on Act. On this basis, the suit was dismissed. The First Appellate Court affirmed these findings.
6. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant argued that both Courts below erred in rejec%ng the claim for permanent injunc%on merely because the plain%ff failed to prove %tle, even though his possession was established and recognized in the judgments. It was urged that the Salsi Faisla of 1946 (Ex. P1), a document over 30 years old, confirmed the %tle of the plain%ff’s father, and in any case, long se,led possession en%tled him to protec%on against unlawful interference. Reliance was placed upon Ram Daan (D) through LRs v. Urban Development Trust, (2014) 8 SCC 902; and Mool Chand v. Udho Ram , 1994 (3) RRR 127.
Sarita Rani
2025.08.22 18:26
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the plain%ff claimed ownership but failed to establish it, and being an unau-
thorized occupant, he was rightly denied relief.
8. Upon considera%on, it emerges that the relief sought by the plain%ff was only a decree of permanent injunc%on. He did not claim a de- clara%on of ownership. Thus, both Courts below fell into error by refusing in-
junc%on solely on the ground that the plain%ff failed to prove %tle.
9. The evidence shows that the plain%ff and before him his father have been in long, con%nuous possession since at least 1946. Several wit- nesses supported this claim. Defendants themselves admi,ed his possession, though they termed it unauthorized. The plain%ff relied on Salsi Faisla dated 21.05.1946 (Ex. P1), an arbitra%on decision between Al-Bani and the plain%ff’s father, Indraj. This document, more than 30 years old, recorded that Indraj was given a plot measuring 40’ x 45’ at Chandawli Gate near Oc- troi Post without any price, and that neither Al-Bani nor his heirs would claim any right therea#er. The boundaries men%oned in Ex. P1 correspond to the site in dispute. This document required no registra%on, as it was not a trans- fer for considera%on but a recorded se,lement of pre-exis%ng possession.
Reliance can be placed on Mool Chand v. Udho Ram (supra).
10. On the other hand, the defendants failed to prove their own %tle. DW1, Prem Raj Singh, Assistant Engineer, admi,ed that no record exis- ted to show that the administra%on owned the property. DW2, the Patwari, also conceded that there was no documentary evidence suppor%ng the ad- ministra%on’s claim. His tes%mony further disclosed that the property lay in the Abadi of Lal Dora, consolida%on of which had taken place in 1939-40. Thus, there is no credible evidence that the defendant administra%on ever owned the property.
1
