Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurinder Singh vs Smt. Lalita Rani And Others on 29 April, 2011
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
R. S. A. No. 1847 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1847 of 2007
Date of Decision : April 29, 2011
Gurinder Singh .... Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Lalita Rani and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. B. R. Mahajan, Advocate
for respondents no.1 to 4.
None for proforma respondent no.5.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
By this common order, I am disposing of two appeals i.e. instant R. S. A. No. 1847 of 2007 titled Gurinder Singh vs. Smt. Lalita Rani and others - preferred by defendant no.1 and R. S. A. No. 2274 of 2007 titled Smt. Lalita Rani and others vs. Gurinder Singh and others - preferred by plaintiffs no.1, 3 and 4 because both these appeals have arisen out of the same suit.
R. S. A. No. 1847 of 2007 2
Hereinafter, parties are being referred to from instant R. S. A. No. 1847 of 2007.
Respondents no.1 to 4/plaintiffs filed suit against defendant no.1-appellant Gurinder Singh and his father Sardool Singh - defendant no.2/respondent no.5. The plaintiffs alleged that Yag Dutt occupied the suit land in August 1961 and raised construction thereon and remained in possession of the suit property. He died on 08.08.1988. Plaintiffs being his widow, daughter and two sons are his legal heirs. Since after his death, they are in possession of the suit property. Possession of the plaintiffs and their predecessor Yag Dutt has been hostile and continuous, and therefore, they have become owners of the suit property by adverse possession. Yag Dutt also inducted Sudarshan Lal, Jaspal Singh, Ram Murti and Raghbir Singh as tenants in parts of the property vide different rent notes. Plaintiffs' ejectment petition under the Rent Act, filed against Raghbir Singh, has been allowed by Rent Controller vide order dated 06.06.1991 and Execution Petition for executing the said order was pending. However, the defendants, claiming themselves to be allottees of the suit land from Punjab Wakf Board, threatened to interfere in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. The defendants also alleged that plaintiff no.1 was tenant in part of the suit property. Accordingly, plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession of the suit property from the plaintiffs and from interfering in their enjoyment of the R. S. A. No. 1847 of 2007 3 suit property.
Defendants broadly denied the plaint averments and inter alia pleaded that plaintiff no.1 had illegally occupied two rooms on first floor of the suit property and defendants had filed ejectment petition under the Rent Act against the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that remaining suit property is in possession of the defendants as owners on the basis of written document from Punjab Wakf Board. It was denied that construction was raised by Yag Dutt or that Yag Dutt or plaintiffs have been residing in the suit property since the year 1960. It was also pleaded that rent notes allegedly executed by Sudarshan Lal, Ram Murti, Jaspal Singh and Raghbir Singh are forged and fabricated. It was pleaded that one Joginder Singh, who was earlier in possession of part of the property, had delivered possession to the defendants. It was alleged that defendants have become owners of the suit property on the basis of allotment orders issued by Punjab Wakf Board. Various other pleas were also raised.
Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, vide judgment and decree dated 26.03.2002, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit holding that plaintiffs are in possession of a small part of the suit property and the said possession was not threatened. However, first appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been partly allowed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar, vide judgment and decree dated 05.12.2006, and thereby, suit filed by the plaintiffs has been partly decreed R. S. A. No. 1847 of 2007 4 restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property except portion shown by letters X and XI in site plan Ex.PW-13/1, except in due course of law. Plaintiffs' plea that they have become owners of the suit land by adverse possession has been declined. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no.1 has preferred R. S. A. No. 1847 of 2007, whereas plaintiffs have preferred R. S. A. No. 2274 of 2007.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
In so far as R. S. A. 2274 of 2007 preferred by the plaintiffs is concerned, learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that plaintiffs do not press their claim of being owners of the suit property by adverse possession. However, learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that portion of suit property depicted by letters X and XI in site plan plan Ex.PW-13/1 was in possession of plaintiffs' tenant Raghbir Singh, who has been ordered to be evicted therefrom by the Rent Controller, and therefore, execution proceedings for execution of the said eviction order should not be effected by any observation of the courts below. There is considerable merit in the submission. Plaintiffs have already obtained ejectment order against Raghbir Singh. However, it emerges that Raghbir Singh thereafter surrendered possession of the aforesaid portion to the defendants. Consequently, plaintiffs may pursue their Execution Petition for execution R. S. A. No. 1847 of 2007 5 of the eviction order, in accordance with law. Nothing observed in the instant lis shall prejudice either party in the execution proceedings.
R. S. A. 2274 of 2007 preferred by the plaintiffs stands disposed of accordingly.
Now, coming to R. S. A. 1847 of 2007 preferred by defendant no.1, learned counsel for defendant no.1 vehemently contended that plaintiffs are in possession of only two rooms and one kitchen on the first floor of the suit property and are not in possession of any other part of the suit property. This contention has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Defendants have taken contradictory stands. Defendants earlier filed ejectment petition against the plaintiffs regarding the aforesaid portion alleging them to be tenants. However, their ejectment petition was dismissed. The defendants have now alleged that plaintiffs are in illegal possession of the aforesaid portion. Be that as it may, possession of the plaintiffs over the said portion stands admitted. As regards remaining portion, plaintiffs specifically pleaded that their predecessor Yad Dutt inducted various tenants in the shops existing in the suit property. It is not the case of the defendants that the said tenants had been inducted by the defendants. However, it has come in evidence that the shops were in occupation of the tenants. Plaintiffs have examined two tenants Sudarshan Lal and Ram Murti as witnesses. They have stated that they were inducted as tenants by plaintiffs predecessor Yag Dutt. Moreover, ejectment R. S. A. No. 1847 of 2007 6 petitions filed by defendants against the tenants stand dismissed, whereas ejectment petition filed by plaintiffs against another tenant was allowed. The defendants did not even plead that they had inducted the aforesaid persons as tenants. Consequently, possession of the tenants was also constructive possession of the plaintiffs and not of the defendants.
For the reasons aforesaid, finding recorded by the appellate court below in favour of the plaintiffs cannot be faulted with. The said finding is fully justified by the evidence on record and is based on proper appreciation of evidence. The said finding does not warrant interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal bearing R. S. A. 1847 of 2007 preferred by defendant no.1 stands dismissed.
April 29, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE