Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1495 (PNJ)

Bhagat Ram v. Santa Singh

2000-12-06

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - Delay of 8 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. On merits, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. This is an R.S.A. and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.3.2000 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, who, affirmed the judgment and decree dated 9.4.1997 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hoshiarpur who dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and injunction as prayed for. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction alleging that the property in suit was allotted to him and Baba Mela Ram and during the consolidation, necessary entry dated 2.2.1956 was made in favour of the plaintiff and Baba Mela Ram. It was further averred that defendant No. 1 Santa Singh got the entry of Khasra Girdawari in his favour for Sauni 1986 in connivance with the Halqa Patwari and the said entry was false and wrong. Baba Mela Ram died in the year 1987 and thereafter the plaintiff became the exclusive owner in possession of the suit property. After the death of Mela Ram, his devotees gathered and Bhagat Ram was made a chela of Mela Ram and Smadh and Room No. 7 were constructed in the suit property by his devotees. It was further alleged by the plaintiff that during his life time Baba Mela Ram nominated him as his chela as he had been serving the said Baba Mela Ram. The plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the entire suit property as he is living in room No. 6 and is worshipping the Smadh. Defendant Santa Singh had been constructing his house in village Naloyian and he asked the plaintiff to accommodate him for a short period. The defendant assured the plaintiff that he would vacate the room Nos. 4 and 5 as and when his house was completed. Defendant No. 1 is a licensee over the two rooms in question. Now defendant No. 1 has started asserting his legal right over the property of Baba Mela Ram as owner and had tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. 5. The suit was contested by the defendants. 4 and 5 as and when his house was completed. Defendant No. 1 is a licensee over the two rooms in question. Now defendant No. 1 has started asserting his legal right over the property of Baba Mela Ram as owner and had tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. 5. The suit was contested by the defendants. According to them, defendant No. 1 and his father Mela Ram came in to possession of the suit property after the migration and even in the Municipal record, the defendant No. 1 and Mela Ram have been shown to be in possessions of the suit property. It is further contended that during the life time of Mela Ram, defendant No. 1 constructed two rooms in the suit property on the western side after getting the site plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee in the year 1975 and since then he is in possession of the said rooms as owner and the remaining construction has also been made by him and by the devotees jointly. It was denied by the defendants that plaintiff is the Chela of Mela Ram. 6. With these broad pleadings the parties went to trial and the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of land measuring 7 marlas as detailed in the head-note of the plaintiff ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for ? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPP 5. Relief. The parties led evidence in support of their case and on the conclusion of the trial it was held by the trial Court that plaintiff has miserably failed to establish his ownership and possession over the property in dispute and in these circumstances, the suit was dismissed. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree the plaintiff filed an appeal before the first appellate Court which was also dismissed for the reasons given in para No. 14 of the impugned order dated 7.3.2000, which is reproduced as under :- "I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree the plaintiff filed an appeal before the first appellate Court which was also dismissed for the reasons given in para No. 14 of the impugned order dated 7.3.2000, which is reproduced as under :- "I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. A minute perusal of the evidence on the file shows that PW3 Lekh Raj has deposed in his cross-examination that the property in dispute remained in possession of Baba Mela Ram till his death. PW4 Bhagat Ram has also stated in his cross-examination that it is correct that Santa Singh defendant is residing in the rooms which are on the southern side of the property in dispute. A perusal of Jamabandi Ex.PX on the file shows that the suit property is shown to be the ownership of Gram Panchayat. Ex. P.2 and Ex.P.3 Jamabandis show that the suit property is the ownership of the Municipal Committee and Khasra Girdawari also shows the same to be the ownership of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur. The plaintiff has not placed any document on the file showing that the same was allotted to him. In these circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that the lower Court has rightly given the findings that the plaintiff/appellant is not the owner of the suit property and he is not entitled to declaration and injunction prayed for. Hence, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings of the Lower Court and there being no merits in the appeal filed by the appellant, the same is hereby dismissed." Still not satisfied with the order of the learned Additional District Judge, the present revision has been filed by the plaintiff. 8. I have heard Shri K.K. Jagia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the impugned order. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention to the Jamabandi for the year 1955-56. He also drew my attention to column No. 5 of the aforesaid Jamabandi by stating that Bhagta son of Baba Mela Ram has been shown in possession of the property and the nature of the property has been shown for extension of Abadi. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. He also drew my attention to column No. 5 of the aforesaid Jamabandi by stating that Bhagta son of Baba Mela Ram has been shown in possession of the property and the nature of the property has been shown for extension of Abadi. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The case set up by the plaintiff in the trial Court was that Khasra No. 137/1 was allotted to him and Shri Mela Ram after their migration from Pakistan in equal shares by the State Government and during the consolidation proceedings necessary entry dated 2.2.1956 was made in their favour. When asked where are those basic documents, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to give any satisfactory reply. In this view of the matter, both the Courts have rightly held that plaintiff has failed to prove that he was the owner of the property. Moreover, Khasra Girdawari for the year 1955-56 cannot be acted upon because thereafter, the property has been shown in possession of the Municipal Committee in the Khasra Girdawari. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant also invited my attention to a photo copy of the Karwai Istemal and submitted that this document has not been properly examined by the courts below. This is 30 years old document and is per se admissible. The argument of the counsel for the appellant again is not acceptable to the Court. The important point in this case is whether the basic document of allotment as relied upon by the plaintiff is in possession of the plaintiff. In the absence of that document no reliance can be placed to this photo copy. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.