Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldip Singh Rai Son Of Late S. Karam ... vs The Punjab Urban Development Authority ... on 7 August, 2009
Regular Second Appeal No.4108 of 2008
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No.4108 of 2008
Date of decision: 07.08.2009
Kuldip Singh Rai son of Late S. Karam Singh Rai,
r/o 270, Master Tara Chand Nagar, Jalandhar.
..... Appellant.
Versus
1.The Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA)
Chandigarh, through its Administrator.
2.Additional Chief Administrator, The Punjab Urban
Development Authority, Opp. Tehsil Complex,
Jalandhar.
..... Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER
Present:- Mr. O.P. Hoshiarpuri, Advocate
for the appellant.
Sham Sunder, J.
This Regular Second Appeal is
directed against the judgment and decree
Regular Second Appeal No.4108 of 2008 -2- dated 08.01.2007, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, vide which it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2008, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge,Jalandhar,vide which it dismissed the appeal.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Virender Singh Sachdeva son of Shri Avtar Singh r/o 3081, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh, was allotted a plot measuring 90' x 50', bearing no. 746, Phase-I, Urban Estate Jalandhar, vide allotment letter dated 23.09.1986. The said plot was re-allotted to Smt. Sudarshan Kaur wife of Bhag Singh, r/o village Dessu Majra, Pokharar, District Ropar. The plaintiff purchased the said plot from Smt. Sudarshan Kaur, vide sale deed dated 01.02.1996. It was stated that , in the month of October, 1998, the plaintiff submitted a site plan, in the office of the defendants, for raising Regular Second Appeal No.4108 of 2008 -3- construction over the plot, in question, but their officials did not sanction the same, and raised an objection that there was difference of area of the plot, on actual measurement at the spot, than the one mentioned in the sale deed. It was further stated that the plot, which existed at the spot, as per the measurement, came to be 88'.3" x 48'.9" meaning thereby an area of 182 square feet was less at the spot, than the one purportedly sold by the defendants to Varender Singh Sachdeva. The plaintiff had no option than to submit the site plan, as per the directions of the defendants, for raising construction over the area of 88'.3" x 48'.9", which was sanctioned. The plaintiff, thus, carried out the construction accordingly. It was further stated that the calculated loss of the less area, amounted to Rs.2,50,000/-. The plaintiff claimed the amount aforesaid, as compensation, alongwith interest. The defendants were many a time asked, to Regular Second Appeal No.4108 of 2008 -4- pay the amount, in question, alongwith interest, but to no avail. On their final refusal, to accede to the request of the plaintiff, left with no alternative, a suit for recovery, was filed.
3. The defendants, put in appearance, and contested the suit, by way of filing joint written statement, wherein, it was pleaded that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit; that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; that the suit was not maintainable, being barred under the Punjab Urban Development Act; and that the suit was barred by time. It was stated that there was no privity of contract between the defendants and the plaintiff. It was further stated that, as per the allotment letter, an area of 90' x 50', measuring 500 square yards, was allotted to Varinder Singh Sachdeva. However, the area at the spot came to be 88'.3" x 48'.9" and payment was made by him in Regular Second Appeal No.4108 of 2008 -5- respect of that area. No protest was raised by Virender Singh Sachdeva or Sudarshan Kaur, at any point of time. It was further stated that the plaintiff was not assigned any right by the re-allottee and, therefore, he could not file a suit for recovery of the amount, for the lesser area. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues, were struck by the trial Court :-
"1- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants ?OPP 2- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the interest from the defendants, if so, its effect to what rate ?OPP 3- Whether the suit is within limitation ?OPD 4- Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD Regular Second Appeal No.4108 of 2008 -6- 5- Whether the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties ?OPD 6- Whether the suit is not maintainable ?OPD 7- Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit ?OPD 8- Whether the suit had not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction ?OPD 9- Relief."
5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the trial Court dismissed the suit.
6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the appellant/plaintiff, which was also dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide its judgment and decree dated 29.05.2008.
Regular Second Appeal No.4108 of 2008 -7- 7 Still feeling dis-satisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff.
8. The Counsel for the appellant submitted that since the plaintiff (appellant) paid the price of 90' x 50' area to Sudarshan Kaur, his vendor, and stepped into her shoes. He further submitted that since the area at the spot, was less than the one shown in the allotment letter, in favour of Sudarshan Kaur, the plaintiff was entitled to the amount claimed as compensation. He further submitted that the suit was within limitation. He further submitted that the Courts below misread and mis-appreciated the evidence, resulting into recording of perverse finding, leading to the dismissal of suit. He further submitted that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, being illegal, are liable to be set aside.
Regular Second Appeal No.4108 of 2008 -8-
9. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, in my considered opinion,the appeal deserves to be dismissed,for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at, by the trial Court, and first Appellate Court, even if, the same are grossly erroneous as the legislative intention, was very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a "third trial on facts" or "one more dice in the gamble." It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Regular Second Appeal No.4108 of 2008 -9- Court in interfering with the judgments of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. There is, no dispute, that the plot, in question, was originally allotted to Varinder Singh Sachdeva. It was also not disputed that the same was re-allotted to Sudarshan Kaur , from whom the plaintiff purchased the same. No doubt, in the allotment letter, the measurement of plot was mentioned as 90' x 50' = 500 square yards, but, at the spot, the area in existence was 80'.3" x 48'.9" and, as such, an area of 182 square feet was less. There is nothing, on the record, that Varinder Singh Sachdeva ever raised any protest to the defendants. There is also nothing, on the record, that Sudarshan Kaur made any representation, to the defendants, that the area re-allotted to her, was less than what was shown in the allotment letter. It was for Sudarshan Kaur to see, as to what area actually existed at the spot. It was Regular Second Appeal No.4108 of 2008 -10- also for the plaintiff, to be careful by inspecting the area, at the spot, to ascertain, as to whether, the same tallied with the area mentioned in the sale deed, executed in his favour. If the plaintiff, did not take such precautions, before purchasing the plot, then the defendants could not be blamed. There was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants. If any loss was caused to the plaintiff, the same could be recovered by him from his vendor i.e. Sudarshan Kaur and not from the defendants. The findings of the Courts below, that the plaintiff was not entitled to the recovery of any amount, from the defendants, are based on the proper reading and due appreciation of the evidence. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
10. The Courts below were also right, in holding that the suit was barred by time. The plot was allotted to Varinder Regular Second Appeal No.4108 of 2008 -11- Singh Sachdeva on 23.09.1986. Ultimately, the same was purchased by the plaintiff from Sudarshan Kaur, re-allottee of the plot, on 01.02.1996. The plaintiff could file a suit only within a period of three years from 01.02.1996, but, on the other hand, the same was filed on 26.04.1999. The findings of the Courts below, that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by time, are correct. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
11. The concurrent findings of the Courts below, on the aforesaid points, being based on the correct reading and appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. The judgment and the decrees of the Courts below are liable to be upheld.
12. No question of law, much less substantial, arises in this appeal, for the determination of this Court.
Regular Second Appeal No.4108 of 2008 -12-
13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands dismissed.
( Sham Sunder )
August 07.2009 Judge
dinesh