RSA No. 3547 of 2013 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No. 3547 of 2013 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 6.5.2014

Abhay Singh

.....Appellant

Versus

Norang Singh and others

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

Present: Mr. J.V.Yadav, Advocate

for the appellant.

***

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J

Feeling aggrieved against the concurrent findings recorded

by both the learned courts below, dismissing his suit for declaration,

plaintiff has approached this Court by way of present appeal.

Brief facts of the case, as recorded by learned District

Judge, are that there was one Mohar Singh who was having 164

Kanals 15 Marlas land in Khewat No. 295, Khatonis No. 366 to 368,

situated within the revenue estate of village Nangal Sirohi, Tehsil and

District Mahendragarh, as per Jamabandi for the year 1979-80. He

was owner of 5/8 share out of land bearing rectangle and killa

numbers 68//21 min west, 83//15/2, 16/1, 17/2, 18/2, 23 min, 24 min

Kumar Amit

2014.06.13 14:15

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA No. 3547 of 2013 (O&M)

2

north, 25, 84//19,11,12, 14 min, west 17/1, 18/19,20, 21, 22, 23/1,

85//2/2, 88//3/1 min, east 109//12/1, 19/1, 449 and 84//8 (7-7), 13 (8-

0), 83//3/1 (0-1) in west and 83//23 (0-6). Others co-sharers were

also exclusive owner of their respective portions as per jamabandi for

the year 1979-80.

It was pleaded that plaintiff was adopted son of late Mohar

Singh. Plaintiff filed a civil suit no. 879 dated 12.10.1982 titled 'Abhay

Singh Vs. Mohar Singh and ors.' In that suit, defendant No. 1 was

present defendant no. 3. In that suit, a compromise was effected on

15.10.1982 and according to compromise, rectangle and killa No.

83//23(8-0) to the extent of 0-6, in southern side 84//8 (7-7), 13 (8-0),

88//3/1 (8-0) to the extent of 0-14 was given to defendant No.1, total

measuring 16 kanals 7 marlas. Plaintiff became exclusive owner of

the remaining movable and immovable property of late Mohar Singh.

It was further pleaded that defendant No. 1 was a clever

person. He has been working in revenue department. By exercising

influence of his powers, contrary to DDR No.90 dated 17.10.1983,

judgment and decree dated 5.11.1982 and compromise dated

15.10.1982, defendant no. 1 got entered mutation no. 1931 dated

8.10.1983. It was pleaded that defendant no. 1 by taking advantage

of wrong revenue record filed a partition application before Assistant

Collector 1st Grade, Mahendragarh. In the partition proceedings,

defendant no. 1 wanted to take valuable portion out of the disputed

property. In partition proceedings, defendant No. 1 did not mention

the judgment and decree dated 5.11.1982. When partition application

was filed by defendant No. 1, it came to the knowledge of plaintiff

Kumar Amit

2014.06.13 14:15

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA No. 3547 of 2013 (O&M)

3

that a wrong mutation No. 1931 was got incorporated by defendant

No. 1 and he was trying to take advantage of the same. Before

Assistance Collector 1^st Grade, question of title was raised by plaintiff

which was dismissed on the ground that in regard to disputed

property, no other suit is pending between the parties.

It was pleaded that defendant No. 1 wanted to take

advantage of wrong mutation No. 193I. Plaintiff requested

defendants several times to admit the genuine request of plaintiff and

consider judgment and decree dated 5.11.1982 to be correct and

binding upon the parties. Defendant No. 1 wanted to make

encroachment over exclusive property of plaintiff for which he has no

right and authority. When defendant finally refused to admit the

genuine request of plaintiff a week back present suit was filed for

decree of declaration to the effect that mutation No. 1931 da