Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bohar Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 23 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010474
Page 1 of 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
115 RSA-5132-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.01.2025
Bohar Singh
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Union of India & Others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Parit Aggarwal, Advocate
for the appellant.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-14517-C--2019 This is an application under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 109 days in re-filing filing the appeal.
After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of 109 days in re-filing filing the appeal is condoned.
MAIN CASE The plaintiff is in second appeal before this Court against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit property, has been dismissed by both the Courts below i.e. vide judgment and decree dated 03.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Moga passed in Civil Suit No.RT-17 17 of 29.01.2013;; which was duly 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 28-01-2025 00:06:40 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010474 Page 2 of 4 affirmed by the learned l Additional District Judge, Moga vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.2018 in Civil Appeal No.178 178 dated 07.12.2016.
2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before efore the learned trial Court.
3. The case as set out by the appellant/plaintiff in his suit was that the Suit property was purchased by Sukhchain Singh son of Chand Singh in an open auction conducted by Government and sale certificate was also issued by the defendant No.1 No.1/Union of India to Sukhchain Singh;
Singh and at the he time of purchase, Sukhchain Singh was put in possession by defendant No.1 in the property in dispute as owner owner; and said Sukhchain Singh started residing in property in dispute and the property is assessed to house tax and the name of Sukhchain Singh is duly appearing in the house tax record. It was further averred that Sukhchain Singh leased out the property in dispute vide lease deed dated 25.10.2012 and put the plaintiff in possession as lessee under Sukhchain Singh. It was alleged that the Defendants want to take forcible possession of the property in dispute for which they have got no right right. Accordingly, the plaintiff/appellant filed the present, suit for permanent injunction on the ground that the plaintiff derives title to the suit property from Suk Sukhchain Singh vide lease deed dated 25.10.2012 (Ex. P P-1) who in turn purchased the suit property from Govt. of India in an open auction vide sale certificate dated 3.9.1980 (Ex. P-5).
P 5). Both the Courts below dismissed the 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 28-01-2025 00:06:41 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010474 Page 3 of 4 claim of the plaintiff on the ground that he was not able to prove his possession.
4. During the pendency of the above litigation, one Darshan Singh filed a petition for ejectment against PSEB which was allowed vide order dated 18.11.2009. The execution of the above said order was filed on 14.6.2010. The plaintiff along with Sukhchain Singh filed objections qua the same claiming that the property in dispute/the present suit property was allotted to them by the Government in the year 1980. However, the objections of the appellant/plaintiff were dismissed by both the Court below on the ground that the objectors were not able to prove their possession or the existence of any conveyance deed or examine any official to prove the authenticity of the allotment letter (Ex. P P-5).
5). The plaintiff along along with Sukhchain Singh preferred ESA No. 10 of 2023 before this Hon'ble Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 5.4.2024.
5. In view of the above undisputed facts, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. Even otherwise, vide concurrent findings, ings, both the Courts ourts below have held that the plaintiff had miserably failed to prove his possession over the suit land upon which he claims to have derived title as lessee from Sukhchain Singh who had purchased the suit land through open auction from the Government. The ld. Trial court in para 11 of its judgment dated 3.11.2016 has given the following finding: -
"....Perusal Perusal of the entire pleadings of the parties shows that the plaintiff has failed to stand on his own legs to prove his case as the plaintiff has failed to prove the fact that he is in 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 28-01-2025 00:06:41 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010474 Page 4 of 4 possession of the same land which he alleges that Sukhchain Singh has purchased through an open auction from the Government as the lease deed dated 25.10.2012 shows that it is of the land whose file No. of the conveyance deed is 15/3/s(?) however the document i.e. the conveyance deed i.e. Ex-P5 P5 so produced by the plaintiff a allegedly in the name of Sukchain Singh mentions file No. 15/V/s and both the file numbers on the lease deed i.e Ex Ex-P1 and conveyance Deed i.e. Ex-P5 P5 does not tally with each other to prove the fact that the plaintiff has taken the same land on lease from SSukhchain Singh which he has allegedly purchased in an open auction from the Government and further perusal of Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW9/A shows that the same pertains to 15/3/s and not 15/V/s...."
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is unable to controvert rovert or deny the above said facts.
7. In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed.
8. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
23.01.2025 (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 28-01-2025 00:06:41 :::