Punjab-Haryana High Court
Phool Chand vs Dhanno Devi (Dead) Through Her Legal ... on 10 December, 2008
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Regular Second Appeal No. 1425 of 2000 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Regular Second Appeal No. 1425 of 2000
Date of Decision: 10.12.2008
Phool Chand
...Appellant
Versus
Dhanno Devi (dead) through her legal representatives and Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. R.K.Gupta, Advocate
for the respondents.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
Appellant/plaintiff lost in two Courts below and he has preferred the second appeal. Admittedly, neither the plaintiff examined himself nor led any oral evidence. His entire case is built upon entries in the revenue record i.e. jamabandi for the year 1985-86 Ex.P1, khasra girdawari Ex.P2 to P6 as documentary evidence. Learned trial Court noticed the contention of learned counsel for the respondents/defendants that jamabandi Ex.P1 for the year 1985-86 is a fabricated document. The Court in order to satisfy itself called Parat Patwar and Parat Sarkar and taken into consideration jamabandi Ex.CX and found that the appellant/plaintiff has been recorded as tenant on Regular Second Appeal No. 1425 of 2000 2 batai on basis of 1/3rd share. The defendants proved in evidence that they succeeded in eviction petition for ejectment of the appellant/plaintiff from the disputed land.
Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, appearing for the appellant/respondent states that the defendants could only prove their possession over 101 kanals & 10 marlas of land which was allotted to Kaushalya Devi and to which defendants No.1 and 2 to the suit had succeeded.
In the present case, no oral evidence was led by the plaintiff. Mr. Amit Jain further stated that even the defendants had not led any evidence. The Court gave its finding from the documentary evidence adduced before the two Courts below. The Court had discharged the duty of verifying the documents in original by calling Parat Patwar and Parat Sarkar. The Court further held that Phool Chand, Rangi Ram and Kaushalya Devi were allotted rectangle No. 83 killa No. 24/2 gair mumkin makan as per their share in taksim Ex.D5. Learned trial Court further held that record shows that after the partition of the land, the plaintiff has no concern whatsoever in respect of land measuring 46 kanals 12 marlas allotted to Rangi Ram etc. and land measuring 101 kanals 10 marlas allotted to Kaushalya Devi. It further held that "as far as land measuring 4 kanal 1 marla allotted to Phool Chand exclusively and the share allotted to Phool Chand exclusively and the share allotted to the plaintiff in rect. no. 83 killa No. 24/2(1-19) is concerned there is no evidence on file to show that the defendants threatens to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff on that Regular Second Appeal No. 1425 of 2000 3 portion of the land, which was allotted vide Sanad Taksim Ex.D5".
In the present case, somebody had to step into the witness box to say that the defendants are taking active steps to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff. No apprehension has been brought on record. As stated earlier nobody had stepped into the witness box. The defendants are well within their rights to dispossess the appellants/defendants in due course of law on basis of ejectment order passed in their favour. The findings of learned trial Court were concurred by learned lower Appellate Court, it further held that plaintiff had made admission in the previous suit that he was tenant on the suit property. It further stated that in the suit, the plaintiff did not describe the capacity in which he holds the suit land. Therefore, the two Courts below have rightly declined relief of permanent injunction to the appellant/plaintiff.
A contention of opposing counsel Mr. R.K.Gupta, Advocate, has been recorded by this Court in its order dated 20.5.2008 that this appeal has become infructuous as the possession has already been taken by defendants in due course of law. There is nothing for learned counsel for the appellant to repel this assertion.
There is nothing on the record to convince this Court to take a contrary view. Since no substantial question of law arise, no interference is warranted. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 10, 2008 "DK"