Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gian Kaur Decasesed Through Her Lrs vs Harmesh Singh on 11 February, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:020204
Page 1 of 15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
114 Date of decision: 11.02.2025
RSA-1271-2020 (O&M)
Gian Kaur deceased through her LRs
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Harmesh Singh
...Respondent(s)
***
RSA-1129-2020 (O&M)
Gian Kaur deceased through her LRs
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Harmesh Singh
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Aditya Dassaur,, Advocate
for the appellant.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-3815-C-2020 2020 IN RSA-1271-2020 RSA This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act r/w Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 77 days in 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 77days days in filing the present appeal is condoned. MAIN CASE Both the above appeals are being disposed o of by this common order as the facts, facts issues and parties involved in both the 1 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2025 23:31:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:020204 Page 2 of 15 appeals are identical. Both the appeals emanate from cross cross-suits filed by the parties against each other in respect of the same suit land land.
2. RSA-1271-2020 is filed by the plaintiff plaintiff-Gian Kauragainst the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby her suit bearing CS No.259/2014 dated 27.05.2014 27.05.2014titled as Gian Kaur wd/o Parkash Singh vs. Harmesh Singh s/o Ujjagar Singh Singh, for permanent injunction njunction against the defendant - Harmesh Singh/respondent herein, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.
3. RSA-1129-2020 is filed by the defendant-Gian Kaur against the concurrentjudgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the Civil Suit No.CS/358/2014 dated 08.07.2014 titled as Harmesh Singh s/o S. Ujjagar Singh vs. Gian Kaur wd/o Parkash Singh , for permanent injunction filed byHarmesh Singh Singh/respondent herein, has been decreed by both the Courts below.The below. respondent had filed the said Civil Suit No.CS/358/2014 dated 08.07.2014 seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellant from forcibly and illegally dispossessing the respondent from the suit land and also restraining the appellant from interfering into the peaceful possession possession of the respondent over the suit land. The said suit was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017. The appeal bearing Civil Appeal No.44 dated 01.02.2018 filed by the appellant herein namely Gian Kaur against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Kapurthala vide judgment and decree dated 06.08.2019. The said 2 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2025 23:31:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:020204 Page 3 of 15 judgments have been challenged by the appellant before this Court by way of connected RSA-1129-2020.
RSA
4. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being drawn from, and evidence is being referred to as pertaining to RSA-1271-2020 which was filed prior in time.
time
5. Brief facts of the case as set out by the appellant/ plaintiff - Gian Kaurin Kaur CS No. 259/2014 dated 27.05.2014 are that the appellant is the joint owner and in joint possession of suit land as detailed in the head note of the plaint and situated in village Fatehgarh, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala, as per jamabandi for the year 2009 2009-10.
That earlier the Khasra no.407/110/2-16 no.407/110/2 16 was combined Khasra no.110/7 no.110/7- 11 and Gian Kaur wd/o Parkash Singh, Ajaib Singh, Satnam Singh, Kuldeep Singh ss/o Parkash Singh were the joint owners and in joint possession of 1/3rd share of Khasra no.110/7-11.
no.110/7 Gian an Kaur wd/o Parkash Singh and Kuldeep Singh s/o Parkash Singh, Malkiat Singh s/o Mehra, all residents of village Fatehgarh, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala sold their part of share measuring 2K-8M 2K 8M i.e. 12 marlas being ½ share of land measuring 1K-4M comprised in Khasra No.277/1/1/1 No.277/1/1/1-4(owned by Gian Kaur & Kuldeep Singh);
Singh) and land measuring 1K 1K-4M comprised in khasra no.277/1/2 owned by Malkit Singh s/o Mehra Mehra; and 12 land being 12/56 share of land measuring 2K-16M 2K 16M comprised in khasra No.110/3 khata no.55/82 (owned by Gian Kaur) vide sale deeddated 18.11.2003 (registered on 19.11.2003) but the possession to the defendant was 3 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2025 23:31:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:020204 Page 4 of 15 delivered from Khasra no.277/1/1/1-4, 4, 277/1/2/1 277/1/2/1-4. As such the respondent is not in possession of the suit land on the basis of registered 'sale deed'. Theappellant Th is a widowed lady of more than 80 years old. The respondent is threatening to take forcible possession of the land in question owned and possessed by the appellant, and also threatening to illegally interfere in the lawful/peaceful lawful/peaceful possession of the appellant over the same for which he has no legal right and in case the respondent succeeds in doing so, then the appellant will suffer an irreparable loss and substantial injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. All the requests and persuasions made to the respondent to admit the claim of the appellant and to desist from illegally interfering and/or otherwise forcibly rcibly dispossessing the appellant from the suit land fell on deaf ears and the respondent plainly refused to accept the requests of the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit.
6. Upon notice, the defendan defendant-respondent appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement inter alia pleading that the appellant is not joint owner or in joint possession of the suit land. It is correct that vide 'sale deed' dated 18.11.2003, Gian Kaur and Kuldeep Singh s/o Parkash Singh Singh sold 12 marlas out of Khasra no.277/1/1/1 no.277/1/1/1-4, Malkiat Singh sold 1K-4M 1K 4M out of Khasra no.277/1/2 and Gian Kaur sold 12 Marlas out of 2K-16M 2K 16M bearing khasra no.110/3 to the defendant. The respondent purchased 48 marlas land vide 'sale deed' dated 18.11.2003 18.11.2003.
It is denied that the possession was delivered from Khasra no.277/1/1/1 no.277/1/1/1-4 4 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2025 23:31:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:020204 Page 5 of 15 and 277/1/2/1-4.
277/1/2/1 It is denied that the respondent is not in possession of suit land on the basis of the 'sale deed'. It is submitted that at the time of execution of sale deed the appellant sold 12 marlas out of khasra no.110/3 and remaining from other khasra numbers. However, the vendors induced the respondent to believe that they are in possession of 48 marlas in Khasra no.277/1/1/1-4, no.277/1/1/1 4, 277/1/2/1 277/1/2/1-4 and represented to handover the possession possession in these two khasra numbers and as per their assurance, it was so scribed in the 'sale deed'. However, the ownership was transferred from khasra no.277/1/1/1 no.277/1/1/1-4, 277/1/2/1-4 and khasra no.110/3 as per the shares of the vendors. Malkiat Singh delivered the possession of the land sold by him, however Kuldeep Singh and Gian Kaur were in possession of only 12 marlas in 277/1/1 and 277/1/2, so the possession of 12 marlas was also given by Gian Kaur from the suit khasra number. It is also pertinent to mention mention here that by selling 12 marlas out of khasra no.110/3, Gian Kaur was left with no share in khasra no. 110/3 at the time when she executed the 'sale deed'. So from the above stated facts, it is clear that the respondent is joint owner in possession of the suit land. Rather the appellant has got no right or interest of any kind in the suit property and the present suit has been filed simply with the ulterior motive to harass the defendant. The other contents of the plaint were denied and prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.
5 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2025 23:31:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:020204 Page 6 of 15
7. Replication was filed by the appellant denying the averments made in the written statement and reiterating the ones made in the plaint.
8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 27.01.2015: -
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has as no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the Court? OPD
5. Relief."
9. On the basis of the pleadings, andthe oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned trial Court decided issue No.1 in favour of the defendant/respondent and against the plaintiff/appellant /appellant;; and issues No.2 to 4 were disposed of not being pressed; thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff plaintiff/appellant vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017.
12.12.2017. The Civil appeal no. 45 dated 01.02.2018 filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Kapurthala vide judgment and decree dated 06.08.2019 06.08.2019.
Hence, present RSA 1271 of 2020 by the plaintiff plaintiff-Gian Kaur.
6 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2025 23:31:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:020204 Page 7 of 15
10. Similarly, in RSA 11299 of 2020, in the Civil Suit No.CS/358/2014 dated 08.07.2014 filed by Harmesh Singh the following issues were framed: -
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Hon'ble Court? OPD
5. Relief."
11. On the basis of the pleadings, and the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned trial Court decided issue No.1 in favour off the plaintiff plaintiff/respondent and against the defendant/appellant /appellant; and issues no.22 to 4 were decided against the defendant/appellant /appellant and in favour of the plaintiff plaintiff/respondent; and the suit was decreed in favour of Harmesh Singh by the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017. The Civil appeal no.
no.44 dated 1.2.2018 filed by Gian Kaur was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Kapurthala vide judgment and decree dated 06.08.2019. Hence, present RSA 1129 of 2020 by Gian Kaur.
Kaur
12. Learned counsel for the appellant Gian Kaur vehemently submits that there was a categoric recital in the Sale Deed 7 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2025 23:31:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:020204 Page 8 of 15 dated 18.11.2003 to the effect that possession to the respondent was given from Khasra Nos.277/1/1 No .277/1/1 and 277/1/2 only; and possession of Khasra No.110/3 No.110/3 was never handed over to the respondent. It is submitted that in view of the definite recital in the Sale Deed, the learned Courts below could not have relied upon the revenue record to hold that possession had been transferred to the respondent respondent. It is submitted that the appellant had brought on record the registered Sale Deed in which it is clearly mentioned that no possession had been given to the respondent in Khasra No.110. It is contended that KhasraGirdawari and mutation do no confer any title title upon the party and there is no presumption of truth attached to these documents. On the other hand, the appellant has attached registered Sale Deed which has presumption of truth attached to it.. The learned Courts below have also failed to consider the ttestimonies of witnesses examined by the appellant who have unequivocally deposed that possession in Khasra No.110 was never given to the respondent. It is contended that the appellant is still in possession. As such, it is prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned judgments and decrees be set aside.
13. In support learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ishwari Devi Vs. Sarla Devi" Law Finder Doc ID # 263878to 263878to submit that recitals in the sale deed upon"Fateh Singh Vs. Het Ram"
are sacrosanct. Ld. Counsel also relies upon Law Finder Doc ID # 37955, to submit that presumption of truth attached 8 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2025 23:31:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:020204 Page 9 of 15 to revenue record under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, would not be applicable to Khasra Girdawaris.
14. No other argument is made on behalf of the appellant.
15. I have heard learned counsel for the appellantand perused the case file in great detail.
16. The case of the appellant is that there she was joint owner in joint possession of suit land as reflected in the Jamabandi for the year 2009-10
10.Vide registered Sale Deed dated 18.11.2003 (Ex.P2) the appellantalong along with Kuldeep Singh and Malkiat Singh sold her share of land measuring measuri 2 kanal 8 marla/ 48 marlas to Harmesh Singh, in following manner:-
Half share (1 kanal 4 marla) of Khasra No.277/1/1/ No.277/1/1/-4 (Gian Kaur and Kuldeep Singh's share) share);
1 kanal 4 marla in Khasra No.277/1/2 (Malkiat Singh's share); 12/56thshare (2 kanal 16 marla marla) in Khasra No.110/3 (Gian Kaur's share).
To put it concisely, the appellant sold 12 marlas of land out of khasra no. 277/1/1; 24 Marlas of land out of khasra no. 277/1/2; and 12 Marlas of land out of khasra no. 110/3.
110/3.It is the case of the appellant, that th the respondent received possession only in Khasra Nos.277/1/1/1 and 277/1/2/1-4;; and no possession was handed over Nos.277/1/1/1-4 regarding Khasra No.110/3 as the same was situated at a distance of 3 kms away from the remaining suit land. It is also stated to have been agreed between the parties that possession of land sold in respect of 9 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2025 23:31:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:020204 Page 10 of 15 110/3 would be given to the respondent after partition. In support of her case, the appellant hasrelied primarily upon the recital in the Sale Deed.
17. I find no merit whatsoev whatsoever in the contention of the appellant. A perusal of the sale deed Ex.P-2 Ex.P 2 clearly shows that 48 Marla land was sold to the respondent for a saleconsideration of ₹1,35,000/- which was paid in entirety before the Sub Registrar Phagwara. There is also no dispute that the ownership was transferred from khasra no.277/1/1/1 277/1/2/1-44 and khasra no.110/3 as per the shares of the no.277/1/1/1-4, vendors.In In regard to possession, Ld. Counsel for the appellant is placing reliance upon the recital in the sale deed to the eeffect that "Possession has been given to the purchaser at the spot.
spot.Possession has been given to the purchaser by the owner as per the family partition from K Khasra no.
277/1/1/1-4 4 and 277/1/2/1-4, 277/1/2/1 4, which will come to the share of the purchaser at the time of partition."However, However, the said recital is of no help to the appellant as it is the consistent case of the respondent that thatthe vendors had induced him to believe that they are in possession of 48 marlas in Khasra no.277/1/1/1-4, 4, 277/1/2/1 277/1/2/1-4 and represented to handover the possession in these two khasra numbers and as per their assurance, it was so scribed in the sale deed.
deed.It is for this reason that the duly appointed attorney of the respondent namely Gurpal Singh son of Ujagar Singh DW1, DW1 had deposed that it was written in the Sale Deed that possession against property bought was given in Khasra Nos.277/1/1 and 277/1/2. However, owever, as the vendors could not deliver the possession of 48 10 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2025 23:31:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:020204 Page 11 of 15 marla in Khasra Nos.277/1/1 and 277/1/2 277/1/2 thus the appellant had delivered the possession of 12 marla in khasra No.110/3 as well which is the suit property; and Kuldeep Singh and Malkiat Singh had delivered the possession of 36 marla in Khasra No.277/1/1 and 277/1/2. IIt was in this manner thatt the defendant became owner in possession of 12 marla in Khasra No.110/3. The argument on behalf of the appellant also appear appears to be illogical, as, Sale Deed is of the year 2003 and it would not stand to reason that possession of suit property remains und undelivered till filing of suit in 2014.
18. In any event, the said recital and testimony of DW1 is laid to rest by the undisputed revenue record in favour of the respondent. Admittedly, as per the Khasra Girdawari for the year 2014 2014-15 (Ex.D1) and the fard Jamabandi for the year 2014-15 2014 (Ex.D3), (Ex.D3),the respondent is shown to be owner in possession of entire suit property including that in 110/3.What What finally clinches the issue is that even mutation (Ex.D2), has been sanctioned in favour of the respondent as per w which he is shown to be owner in possession of entire suit property. As such, from the documentary evidence it stands established on file that the Sale Deed has been duly executed in favour of the respondent upon which he was put in possession of the property, property, including the suit property property.
19. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ishwari Devi supra is misplaced as the same is distinguishable on facts and law 11 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2025 23:31:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:020204 Page 12 of 15 inasmuch as the 'discrepancy' therein was in respect of the Khasra Numbers sold; whereas the issue in the present case is regarding possession. Moreover, as per the Sale Deed (Ex.P2), it is the own recital of the appellant in the Sale Deed (Ex.P2) that ""now we shall have no relation with the land being sold.". Att the risk of repetition, it is reiterated that possession of the respondent is duly reflected in the Khasra Girdawari for the year 2014-15 2014 (Ex.D1); and even mutation (Ex.D2) has been entered in favour our of the respondentpursuant pursuant to the Sale Deed. It is admitted by way of Sale Deed 48 marla of land was sold by the vendors, including the appellant.. It is also admitted that land in Khasra No Nos.277/1/1 and 277/1/2 measures only 36 marla. It is also admitte admitted in the Sale Deed that the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,35,000/-
Rs.1,35,000/- was also received by the vendors. As such, the case sought to be put forth by the appellant is contrary to the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has also sought to rely upon judgment of this Court in "Fateh Singh Vs. Het Ram" Law Finder Doc ID # 37955, 37955 to submit that presumption of truth attached to revenue record under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, wo would not be applicable to Khasra Girdawaris.. However, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is entirely distinguishable. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to inform this Court that if, if at the timee of execution of Sale Deed possession was only given in Khasra Nos.277/1/1 and 277/1/2 then how how, when and in 12 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2025 23:31:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:020204 Page 13 of 15 what mannerwas manner the respondent put in possession of khasra No.110/3 as reflected in the revenue record and mutation.
20. Relevant findings returned by learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017 are as under:
under:-
"...A A bare perusal of the documents placed on record in the shape of 'sale deed' dt. 18.11.2003 i.e. Ex.P2 evinces that land described in detail in the head note of the plaint had been sold by the plaintiff to the defendant and it had been mentioned in the same that the possession at the spot had been given to the defendant out of khasra no. 277/1/1/1 277/1/1/1-4 and khasra no. 277/1/2/1-44 but in order to rebut th the documentary evidence of the plaintiff, the defendant placed on record Ex.D1 i.e. the khasragirdawari of the suit property wherein the defendant is reflected to be owner in possession of the entire suit property including the property which is alleged by the plaintiff to have not been given to the defendant, in possession. Ex.D2 copy of intkal further reflects the said fact categorically as the defendant is shown to be the owner in possession of the entire suit property. Apparently, the plaintiff alleges that hat the suit property was although sold to the defendant but the possession of the same was not delivered to him. However, the bald statement of the plaintiff without any oral or documentary evidence to support the same, holds no ground for the plaintiff. On the contrary the defendant has brought on record both oral and documentary evidence to proof his possession over the suit property. In the light of the entire set of circumstances and the evidence brought on record this issue goes in favour of the defen defendant and against the plaintiff."
13 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2025 23:31:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:020204 Page 14 of 15
21. Relevant findings returned by learned first Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 06.08.2019 are as under:-
"11. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has further contended that the possession of the property in dispute has never been transferred or delivered to the respondent, hence they cannot claim the possession of the suit property. Both the parties admitted the execution on of the sale deed dated 18.11.2003, vide which the appellant has transferred the land which is proved on the file as Ex.P2, out of khasra Nos.277/1/1(1 Nos.277/1/1(1-4) and 277/1/2(1-4).
4). It has been mentioned in the sale deed that the property has been sold from three khasra numbers and possession was shown to be delivered out of KhasraNo.277/1/1(1-4)
4) and 277/1/2(1 277/1/2(1-4). It has been shown in Ex.D1 Khasra Girdawari that the respondent is in possession over the entire suit property including the property which is alleged by the plaintiff to have not been given to the defendant, which he has purchased and even mutation has been sanctioned in favour of the respondent as reflected from Ex.D2, which is copy of mutation and Ex.D3 is the copy of jamabandi for the year 2014 2014-15, which also shows the possession of the respondent over the suit property and as far as the factum regarding possession is concerned, it is also admitted by Jyoti attorney of the plaintiff that Gian Kaur has only share of 6 Marlas in Khasra No.110 again said tthe entire land was of Gian Kaur. Kuldeep Singh has got 14 Marlas, which he has taken in exchange but there is no writing of that family partition. Khasra No. 110 is situated 3 K.M from Khasra No.277/1/1 and 277/1/2. Gian Kaur and Malkiat Singh sold 12 Marlas as of land to the respondent. She admitted the sale deed Ex.P2. Gian Kaur plaintiff herself did not turn up 14 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2025 23:31:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:020204 Page 15 of 15 to appear in the witness box, but from the documentary evidence it stands established on the file that the sale deed has been duly executed in favou favour of the respondent as specifically deposed on oath by attorney of the plaintiff Jyoti PWl who admitted the sale deed Ex.P2. The respondent took the possession of the suit land and mutation has also been sanctioned in his favour. Factum of possession has a already been incorporated in the jamabandi as well as in the khasra girdwari. Findings of lower court qua all the issues stand affirmed. Impugned judgment and decree both dated 12.12.2017 do not suffer from any illegality or legal infirmity.
So they do not call all for any interference of this Appellate Court. This appeal being devoid of any merit, deserves dismissal."
22. In view of the above discussion discussion, the present appeals are dismissed.
dismissed
23. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
11.02.2025 (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
15 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2025 23:31:12 :::