Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:020204 judgments have been challenged by the appellant before this Court by way of connected RSA-1129-2020.

It is denied that the possession was delivered from Khasra no.277/1/1/1 no.277/1/1/1-4 4 of 15 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:020204 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.

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 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:020204 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 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.

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 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:020204 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.