IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

116 RSA-3022-2018 (O&M)

Date of decision: 13.01.2025 Rati Ram ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Smt. Laxmi Devi & Others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Saurabh Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurring judgment and decree dated 20.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat; affirming the judgment and decree dated 10.05.2013 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat; whereby the suit of the appellant for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed the present suit seeking declaration to the effect that he is the sole and exclusive owner in possession of the house in dispute as fully mentioned in Para 1 of the plaint. The appellant also sought declaration that the alleged auction certificate dated 01.07.1977 issued by the Wakf Board in favour of respondents No.1 and 2/ defendants No.1 and 2 and registered Sale Deeds dated 28.04.2004 and 17.08.2007 in favour of defendants No.5 and 6/respondents No.5 and 6 are illegal, null and void and are not binding on the rights on the appellants. It has been pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff purchased a plot having an area of 100 square yards comprised in khasra No.4225/2min situated at Rathdhana Road, Sonepat through a registered Sale Deed No.992 dated 25.07.1966 from Shobh Raj, Ishwar Dass and Munshi Ram. It has been further pleaded that appellant was serving in Indian Army and after purchasing of the plot in question, he got constructed his house and started living in his house with his wife. Appellant has no male issue and has only two daughters. Defendants No.1 and 2/Respondents No.1 and 2 are wife and son of the real brother of the Appellant. It has been pleaded that respondents have no right, title or interest in the suit property. It has been further pleaded that respondents are very dishonest and greedy person and they want to grab the suit property under the colour of some auction deed from Wakf board. It has been further pleaded that auction certificate issued by Wakf Board is pertaining to some other property/land/plot. But the respondents want to grab the suit property under the colour of the alleged auction certificate. It is stated that the Wakf Board can give its property in auction only to the person found in possession of the concerned property. It has been further pleaded that total area of Khasra No.4225/2 min is approximately measuring 100 square yards but the Appellant and respondents No. 1 and 2 might have purchased some other land measuring 94 sq. yards. It has been pleaded that defendants No. 1 and 2 filed an earlier suit against the Appellant for injunction and the then Civil Judge (SD) directed both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to construction and possession over the disputed property. But the respondents No.1 and 2 have withdrawn their suit on 31.08.2007 without mentioning any reason. It has been pleaded that respondents No.5 and 6 purchased the suit property from respondents No. 1 to 3 during the pendency of the suit and as such they cannot take the plea of bonafide purchasers. Appellant requested the respondents to admit his claim but to no use. With these pleadings, the present suit was filed.

3. Upon notice, the defendants/respondents herein had appeared and filed reply resisting the suit of the appellant/plaintiff. The title of the appellant was disputed by inter alia pleading that he had never purchased any share from the Khasra No.4225/2min; and even his alleged vendor had no title to pass to the appellant. No rejoinder thereto was filed by the appellant. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court vide order dated

13.01.2009: -

“1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the house in dispute as detailed in paragr