Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Kaur vs Gram Panchayat & Others on 22 January, 2013
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
RSA-2665 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
RSA No.2665 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: January 22, 2013
Surjit Kaur ...Appellant
Versus
Gram Panchayat & others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. A.S. Gill, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. H.S. Baath, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Harvinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Rajan Gupta, J.
Present appeal has been preferred by plaintiff/appellant impugning the judgments passed by both the courts below on the ground that there has been complete misappreciation of evidence.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the courts below have completely gone astray while appreciating the evidence brought on record while dismissing the suit filed by the appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand have argued that both the courts below have rightly dismissed the suit filed by the appellant as she was not found to be entitled for any injunction.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have given careful thought to the facts of the case.
Brief factual background of the case is that appellant preferred a suit seeking a decree for permanent injunction with the RSA-2665 of 2011 2 averments that she was owner of the plot in dispute alongwith superstructure erected thereon in the shape of building. The said property was purchased by the plaintiff from Mohan Lal and Kewal Krishan vide sale deed dated 8.4.2002. Earlier, a decent house known as "SHEESH MAHAL" belonging to ancestors of previous vendors existed over the plot but with the passage of time said building collapsed and the plot was sold by the aforesaid vendors to the plaintiff. Plaintiff started constructing house and had spent more than Rs.5.00 lacs. During the course of construction, defendants tried to disturb her possession. Hence, plaintiff filed the suit. Notice of the suit was issued to the defendants who denied the averments made in the plaint by filing a written statement. They pleaded that plaintiff under the garb of alleged sale deed dated 8.4.2002 attempted to include in the plot the common property known as 'Chownta' measuring 24'-3" x 8'-6" used by the inhabitants as well as the proprietors of the village Pharwala with an intention to grab it, which is duly vested and owned by the Gram Panchayat. Defendant No.1 by adopting due course of law, passed a resolution dated 28.3.2005 thereby requesting Block Development & Panchayat Officer to obstruct the plaintiff from taking possession of the said Chownta, who after making inquiries reported the matter to the police as well as the Deputy Commissioner. Other averments made in the plaint were also denied and it was prayed that suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. Plea of the plaintiff did not find favour with the trial court and suit was dismissed. Plaintiff preferred appeal. The findings arrived at by the trial court were affirmed by the first appellate court and appeal was dismissed. RSA-2665 of 2011 3
As per sale deed Ex.P1, which was brought on record by the plaintiff to prove her ownership, she purchased 02 Marlas of land from Mohan Lal and Kewal Krishan on 8.4.2002. Plaintiff also referred to site plan Ex.P-7. In the said site plan, the Chownta in question was shown in the eastern side of the property. Defendants also produced a sale-deed dated 5.4.1974 as Ex.DW3/A. On perusal of both the sale deeds, courts below came to the conclusion that Chownta i.e. common place was in existence. However, plaintiff had no right to same as would be clear from the perusal of sale-deed Ex.P1. The courts further found that said common place was not in possession of the plaintiff. She had only erected a temporary structure in order to show her possession. I find no no ground to interfere in the concurrent findings of the two courts below. No substantial question of law has been urged requiring interference of this court in second appeal. Appeal is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE January 22, 2013 'rajpal'