Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Gram Panchayat Of Village Rurka ... vs Sarwan Singh (Dead) Through His Lrs on 9 December, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
-1-
RSA No.1302 of 1987
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1302 of 1987
Date of decision: 09.12.2013
The Gram Panchayat of village Rurka Khurd
....Appellant
Versus
Sarwan Singh (dead) through his LRs
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: - Mr. N.P.S. Mann, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for LRs of the respondent.
*****
PARAMJEET SINGH, J.
Instant regular second appeal has been preferred by defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.04.1985 passed by learned Sub Judge 2nd Class, Phillaur, whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by Sarwan Singh (now deceased) represented through LRs was decreed as well as against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.1986 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.
For convenience sake, hereinafter parties will be referred to as appeared in the trial court i.e. appellant as defendant and respondent as plaintiff.
Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit seeking Singh Ravinder 2014.01.09 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -2- RSA No.1302 of 1987 decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land inter alia alleging that he was owner in possession of the suit land since the year 1947 being ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendant without any right, title or interest had threatened to dispossess him. On notice, defendant appeared and filed written statement alleging that plaintiff had no concern with the suit property nor he is in possession of the same. Rather it is the gram panchayat which is the owner in possession of the suit property.
Learned trial Court after considering the pleadings of the parties framed following issues: -
"1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the property in dispute? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD
4. Relief."
To prove his case, plaintiff himself appeared as PW1 and examined Dhian Singh as PW2, Darshan Singh as PW3 and Sudarshan Singh, Draftsman as PW4 and closed his evidence. On the other hand defendant examined Lehmber Singh as DW1, Karam Singh as DW2, Pritam Singh as DW3, Karam Singh as DW4 and Amarjit Singh, Patwari as DW5 and closed its evidence.
Learned trial Court recorded issue-wise finding and decreed Singh Ravinder 2014.01.09 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -3- RSA No.1302 of 1987 the suit of the plaintiff. Trial Court came to the conclusion that plaintiff has proved his possession over the suit land but failed to prove that he was owner of the suit land. Trial Court also came to the conclusion that plaintiff cannot be dispossessed by the gram panchayat. Lower appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the both the Courts below, defendant has preferred this appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From the perusal of record of this case, it appears that no substantial question of law was framed at the time of admission. Only question of law which arises in the present case is "whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of Section 13-B of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961?"
So far as the issue of possession is concerned, finding of fact has been recorded by both the Courts below that plaintiff has been in possession of the suit land since 1947. The finding has been recorded on appreciation of evidence led by the plaintiff and the fact that even no suggestion was given by the defendant that plaintiff was not in possession.
Admittedly, present suit is for permanent injunction. Learned counsel for the defendant has failed to show that land in question is described as shamilat deh or as provided under Section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. No document has been Singh Ravinder 2014.01.09 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -4- RSA No.1302 of 1987 produced to indicate that property in question is shamilat deh. Provisions of Section 13-B of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 are applicable to the shamilat deh. Since there is no evidence that land in question is shamilat deh, plaintiff's case does not fall within the ambit of Section 13-B of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961.
Both the Courts below have recorded a finding that land in question is not shamilat deh. The finding of the fact has been recorded by both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence.
In view of above, no question of law, muchless substantial question of law, arises in this appeal.
Dismissed.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge December 09, 2013 R.S. Singh Ravinder 2014.01.09 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh