RSA No.2790 of 1997 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.2790 of 1997 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION : 26.04.2022

Bachan Singh

…..Appellant

versus

Chuhar Singh alias Ajmer Singh and Others

.....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present :

Mr. Balbir Kumar Saini, Advocate for the appellant

Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate for the respondents

..

ALKA SARIN, J. :

The present regular second appeal has been filed by the

plaintiff-appellant challenging the dismissal of his suit for declaration and

permanent injunction by both the Courts below.

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that one Smt.

Nirmala Devi was co-owner to the extent of 1/3 share in land measuring 53

kanals - 7 marlas i.e. 17 kanals - 16 marlas situated in village Jogna Khera,

Tehsil Thanesar. Vide registered sale deed dated 15.07.1985 she sold the

said land to the plaintiff-appellant for a sale consideration of Rs.45,000/-. On

13.06.1986, a suit [CS No.294-1986] was filed by the present defendant-

respondent for possession by way of pre-emption on the ground that he was

a co-sharer in the land and hence had a superior right to pre-empt the sale in

question. The said suit [CS No.294-1986] was contested by the present

plaintiff-appellant. On 07.01.1988, during the pendency of the said suit for

possession by way of pre-emption, the plaintiff-appellant filed the present

YOGESH SHARMA

2022.04.26 17:20

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this

document

Punjab and Haryana High Court,

Chandigarh

RSA No.2790 of 1997 (O&M)

-2-

suit for declaration and permanent injunction praying that the entry in

Column No.5 of the cultivation with regard to the land comprised in Khewat

No.31, Khatauni No.49, Rect. No.16, Khasra Nos.13 (8-0); Rect. No.35,

Khasra No.6/1 (4-18), 7/1 (4-13) showing as in self-cultivation of the

co-owners is wrong and the correct entry should be Smt. Nirmala Devi and

Sant Kumar equal co-owners through the plaintiff-appellant, gair marusi on

the payment of 1/3 batai be passed and the Revenue Officer may be directed

to make correct entries in the jamabandi for the year 1983-84 and also

restrain the defendant-respondent no.1 from relying upon the said wrong

entry. It was averred that though the possession of the plaintiff-appellant on

the suit land was duly reflected in the Khasra Girdawari for 1983-84 on the

basis of Rapat Nos.92 and 93, however, while preparing the Jamabandi for

1983-84 the revenue authorities had not effected the change in the column of

cultivation.

The suit was contested by the defendant-respondents who inter-

alia pleaded that the suit had been filed only for defeating his right of

pre-emption and that the plaintiff-appellant was never in possession of the

suit land.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were

framed :

1.

Whether the impugned entry in Column No.5 with

respect to the land comprised in Khewat No.31 is

wrong? If so, to what effect ? OPP

2.

Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit

land ? If so, to what effect ? OPD

YOGESH SHARMA

2022.04.26 17:20

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this

document

Punjab and Haryana High Court,

Chandigarh

RSA No.2790 of 1997 (O&M)

-3-

3.

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present

form ? OPD

4.

Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file and

maintain the present suit ? OPD

5.

Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act

and conduct from filing the present suit ? OPD

6.

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file

and maintain the present suit ? OPD

7.

Relief.

Vide judgement and decree dated 01.02.1996 the Trial Court

dismissed the suit for declarati