Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Singh vs Jagdev Kumar And Others on 7 August, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
E. S. A. No. 30 of 2011 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : E. S. A. No. 30 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision : August 07, 2012
Joginder Singh .... Appellant
Vs.
Jagdev Kumar and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate
for the appellant.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
C. M. No. 13468-C of 2011 :
For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 24 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands allowed accordingly. C. M. No. 13469-C of 2011 :
Although averments made in the application accompanied by affidavit are, strictly speaking, not sufficient to condone the long delay of 194 days in re-filing the appeal, yet adopting liberal approach, the said delay is condoned. The application stands allowed accordingly. E. S. A. No. 30 of 2011 (O&M) 2
C. M. No. 13470-C of 2011 :
Application is allowed and Annexures P-1 to P-3 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. C. M. No. 13471-C of 2011 :
Allowed as prayed for.
Main Appeal :
Decree-holder (DH) Joginder Singh, having failed in both the courts below, has filed this Execution Second Appeal.
Appellant filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against respondents no.2 to 5 - Judgment-debtors (JDs) seeking their ejectment from property nos. 184 and 195 in the Industrial Area, Jalandhar City. Learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, vide ex-parte judgment dated 03.04.1986 (Annexure P-1), allowed the said ejectment petition. Petitioner DH filed execution petition for execution of the ejectment order. Respondent no.1 - Objector Jagdev Kaur filed third party objections in the execution petition. The Objector alleged that Santa Singh was original owner of the disputed property. On his death, his wife Pritam Kaur sold property no.195 to Gurmit Singh and property no.184 to Gian Singh vide sale deeds dated 19.09.1984.
Thereafter, Gurmit Singh and Gian Singh sold the disputed properties to Objector in the year 1992 and since then, she is owner in possession thereof. E. S. A. No. 30 of 2011 (O&M) 3 It was alleged that DH was never owner of the property and had no right to institute the ejectment petition. JDs are not in possession of the suit property.
DH controverted the averments by the Objector. It was alleged that JDs were and are in possession of the disputed property. They had also executed rent note in favour of DH. It was denied that Objector is in possession of the disputed property. The Objector had no concern therewith. Various other pleas were also raised.
Learned Executing Court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, vide order dated 29.03.2008, allowed the objections preferred by the Objector and dismissed the execution petition. Appeal against the said order preferred by DH has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment dated 01.10.2010. Feeling aggrieved, DH has filed this Execution Second Appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.
The Objector has led cogent evidence to prove her ownership and possession over the disputed property. She has produced various sale deeds in her evidence depicting that she is owner in possession of the disputed property. On the other hand, DH has not led any evidence to prove his ownership over the disputed property. Jamabandis and mutations have E. S. A. No. 30 of 2011 (O&M) 4 also been produced by the Objector in evidence to prove her case. Thus, Objector has led cogent evidence, whereas there is only self-serving bald and oral statement by the DH in support of his version. His solitary oral statement is not sufficient to rebut the credible documentary evidence led by the Objector. Admittedly, the Objector is also in possession of the disputed property.
It may be added that the DH, in his cross-examination, could not deny the version of the Objector and simply expressed ignorance about the same, as reproduced in the impugned order of the Executing Court. The DH stated that he did not know whether Santa Singh was original owner of the disputed property and after his death, his wife Pritam Kaur sold property no.195 to Gurmit Singh and property no.184 to Gian Singh vide sale deeds dated 19.09.1984, and also if Gurmit Singh and Gian Singh sold the same to Objector Jagdev Kaur in the year 1992, and also if Objector is in possession of the disputed property and her sons are running an industrial unit thereon. In view of this cross-examination of DH himself also, objections preferred by the Objector have been rightly accepted by the courts below.
Counsel for the appellant contended that Objector has taken possession of the disputed property from JDs after passing of ejectment order. However, it would not help the DH in any manner, when DH has no E. S. A. No. 30 of 2011 (O&M) 5 right, title or interest in the disputed property. On the contrary, Objector's predecessors-in-interest Gurmit Singh and Gian Singh had purchased the disputed property vide sale deeds dated 19.09.1984 i.e. even before the filing of the ejectment petition by the DH. Consequently, Objector's predecessors got ownership over the disputed property prior to the commencement of the ejectment petition filed by the DH.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find that concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below in favour of Objector is fully justified by the evidence on record. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. There is, therefore, no ground to interfere with the said finding even on re- appreciation of evidence. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal is bereft of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
August 07, 2012 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE