Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurtej Singh And Others vs Balbir Singh And Others on 9 September, 2009
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
R.S.A.No. 3274 of 2009(O&M) {1}
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
R.S.A.No. 3274 of 2009(O&M)
Date of Decision:September 09, 2009
Gurtej Singh and others
---Appellants
versus
Balbir Singh and others
---Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
***
Present: Mr.Dhirinder Chopra,Advocate,
for the appellants
***
SABINA J.
Plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.2007 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, defendants No. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 12.5.2009. Hence, the present appeal by defendants No. 1 and 2 The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment read as under:-
"Brief facts of the case are that originally Partap Singh, Mithu Singh, Ajaib Singh and Kaur Singh were owners of the R.S.A.No. 3274 of 2009(O&M) {2} disputed property. Partap Singh died leaving behind Balbir Singh, Darbara Singh, Veerpal Kaur, Angrej Kaur and Tarsem Singh as his legal heirs. Gurdip Singh predecessor in interest of Veerpal Kaur, Angrej Kaur and Tarsem Singh defendants No. 3 to 5 purchased share of Mithu Singh, Ajaib Singh and Kaur Singh above said and mutation on the basis of sale was sanctioned in his favour in that regard. Gurdeep Singh sold 0 Kanal 7 Marlas of land which is part of the suit property to plaintiff No. 3 Sarabjit Kaur vide registered sale deed dated 6.1.2000. Kaur Singh sold 0 Kanal 10 Marlas of land also part of the suit property to plaintiff No. 3 vide registered sale deed dated 7.1.23000. Thus, plaintiff No. 3 became owner of 0 Kanal 17 Marlas out of the suit property. Remaining property is owned by plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and defendants No. 3 to 5. Since defendants No. 3 to 5 did not join the plaintiffs, they have been impleaded as performa defendants. Defendants No. 1 and
2 have no concern whatsoever with the suit property and are in illegal possession of the same. They were asked many times to admit their claim and to deliver the possession of the disputed property, but in vain. Consequently the suit.
3. Defendants No. 3 to 5 did not appear despite service, consequently they were proceeded against ex parte.
4. Defendants No. 1 and 2 in their joint written statement took preliminary objections that the suit is not properly valued; that the suit is time barred and that the defendants are in adverse possession of the house/property in dispute which has R.S.A.No. 3274 of 2009(O&M) {3} matured into ownership. On merits, they have admitted that originally Partap Singh, Mithu Singh, Ajaib Singh and Kaur Singh were owners of the suit property. They have denied that the plaintiffs and defendants No. 3 to 5 have inherited the property in dispute after the death of Partap Singh, Rather it has been stated by them that they are owners in possession of the same. Actually, Kartar Singh father of answering defendants purchased two adjacent plots vide Bahi entries i.e. 1 Kanal 0 Marla from Veer Kaur, Ajaib Singh and Kaur Singh for Rs. 1500/- vide writing dated 25.3.1961 and one vacant plot measuring 0 Kanala 7 Marlas 6 Sarsahis for Rs. 275/- vide writing dated 21.6.1962 and constructed a house on the said plots and after his death answering defendants have inherited him. Their possession is open, hostile, continuous for the last more than 12 years and as such they have become owner of the same by adverse possession. They have also stated that earlier a suit for declaration of their ownership on the basis of purchase was filed by them which was partly decreed to the extent that they are in possession of the said house. Plea of adverse possession was not considered in that case. Rest of the contentions made in the plaint have been denied." On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:-
"(1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession as prayed ? OPP (2)Whether the plaintiff is liable to be rejected as the same is R.S.A.No. 3274 of 2009(O&M) {4} not properly stamped? OPD (3)Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation?
OPD (4)Whether the defendants No. 1 and 2 have become owners of the property by way of adverse possession?OPD (5)Relief After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Appellants had filed a suit for possession of the residential house, in dispute on the ground that they were owners of the suit property after having purchased the same. Defendants No. 1 and 2, on the other hand, took up the plea that they had become owners of the house in dispute by way of adverse possession. The case of defendants No. 1 and 2 further was that they were in possession of the house in dispute since the year 1960-61 and prior to that their father was in possession of the same. Defendant No. 1 while appearing in the witness box further claimed that earlier a declaratory suit was filed by them claiming ownership of the suit land and they were held to be in possession of the suit land vide judgment dated 23.11.2002. Appellants also placed reliance on copies of electricity bills Ex. D-1 to D-13. Appellants had filed suit No. RT 441 of 16.2.2000 against Maghar Singh and others for declaration that they were owners in possession of the house in dispute. It has been observed by the learned Additional District Judge that as per the judgment Ex. P-2, in the said suit appellants were found to be in possession but they had failed to prove their ownership. It has further been observed by learned Additional District R.S.A.No. 3274 of 2009(O&M) {5} Judge that defendant No. 1 while appearing in the witness box as DW-3 had admitted that the plaintiffs were owners of the house in dispute. Moreover, once the appellants claimed to be owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession, they had admitted the ownership of the plaintiffs qua the suit property. Present plaintiffs are now taking the possession of the suit property in due course of law by filing the present suit because the appellants are in possession of the suit property. Admittedly, Partap Singh, Mithu Singh, Ajaib Singh and Kaur Singh were owners of the property in dispute. The share of Partap Singh was inherited by Balbir Singh, Darbara Singh and Gurdeep Singh. Gurdeep Singh purchased the property from Mithu Singh, Ajaib Singh and Kaur Singh. Gurdeep Singh sold 7 Marals of land out of the said property to plaintiff No. 3 vide registered sale deed dated 6.1.2000. Kaur Singh sold 10 Marlas of land out the suit property to plaintiff No. 3 became owners of 17 marlas of land. Hence, both the courts below after appreciating the evidence on record held that the plaintiffs were owners of the house in dispute and were entitled to get the possession of the suit property. However, the defendants had failed to establish that their ownership had matured on account of their adverse possession.
No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE September 09, 2009 PARAMJIT