Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 582 (PNJ)

Kaka Singh v. Sinder Pal Singh

2000-05-26

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - Unsuccessful plaintiff Kaka Singh has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.10.1999 passed by Addl. District Judge, Sangrur, who dismissed the appeal of said Kaka Singh by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla, who dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for the reasons given in paras No. 7 of the judgment, which can be reproduced as follows :- "7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that the plaintiff-appellant is in possession of the suit property and the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate this fact. He further contended that even Local Commissioner has held the possession of the plaintiff- appellant in his report. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-respondents that in fact, suit property belongs to Gram Panchayat and is used by it and all the residents of village. He further contended that the plaintiff-appellant wants to grab the property of the Gram Panchayat Ex.P2 there was no Roori but certain bricks were lying in it. So even according to this witness produced by the plaintiff-appellant no Roori was lying in the suit property when he prepared the above said site plan. Moreover, placing of Roori or bricks on vacant land does not constitute legal possession. Such acts of user are common in the villages and are not sufficient to constitute legal possession of any person. Not much value can be attached to the report submitted by (PW5) Darshan Singh, Advocate, who was appointed as Local Commissioner by the Court. Ex.PW5/A is report submitted by the Local Commissioner. In his report, he has mentioned that views of both the parties were heard and from the same it has been guessed that Kaka Singh plaintiff-appellant is in possession of the disputed site for the last 25-30 years. So the report of the Local Commissioner is only based on guess work. (PW2) Aish Mohd. is a resident of village Kateyana and whereas the disputed property is situated at village Sultanpur. So he is not resident of the same village. On the other hand, (DW1) Jagdev Singh, (DW2) Ajaib Singh, (DW3) Charan Singh and (DW4) Sinder Paul Singh, defendant No. 5 have consistently deposed about the possession of the Gram Panchayat on the disputed property. is a resident of village Kateyana and whereas the disputed property is situated at village Sultanpur. So he is not resident of the same village. On the other hand, (DW1) Jagdev Singh, (DW2) Ajaib Singh, (DW3) Charan Singh and (DW4) Sinder Paul Singh, defendant No. 5 have consistently deposed about the possession of the Gram Panchayat on the disputed property. So the plaintiff-appellant did not lead any cogent and reliable evidence to prove his possession over the property in dispute. The learned trial Court has rightly decided this issue against the plaintiff-appellant and in favour of the defendants-respondents. There is no infirmity in the seeking injunction against the defendant-respondents in the present suit. I have carefully considered the contentions advanced by both the parties. The plaintiff-appellant produced sale deeds Exs. P3 in order to prove his ownership of the suit property. All these sale dees are unregistered and inadmissible in evidence. A sale of property of the value of less than Rs. 100/- can be effected orally by delivery of possession but once the sale deed has been reduced into writing, it requires compulsory registration irrespective of the value of the property. Even a sale deed of the immovable property of the value of Re. 1/- requires compulsory registration. The plaintiff-appellant has placed on record three site plans i.e. Exs.P1, P2 and PW4/A. Site plans Ex.P2 and Ex.PW4/A are not consistent with the earlier site plan Ex.P1 produced by the plaintiff-appellant at the time of filing of the suit. In the site plan Ex.P1, the disputed property marked AXYD is shown to be 10 x 60 and whereas in the site plan Ex.PW4/A the disputed site is shown to be 19-3" x 45-3". In the site plan Ex. P2 the disputed site is shown as 20 x 41-6". So the plaintiff-appellant is even not aware of the dimensions of the property in dispute. In the plaint, it is averred by the plaintiff- appellant that he has placed his Roori etc. in the site suit property. In his examination-chief in Court (PW6) Kaka Singh plaintiff-appellant nowhere stated that he has stored Roori in the suit property. (PW1) Naresh Kumar, Draftsman who had prepared site plans Exs. P1 and P2 in his cross-examination stated that in the disputed site shown in findings of the learned trial Court on this issue and the same are hereby affirmed." 2. In his examination-chief in Court (PW6) Kaka Singh plaintiff-appellant nowhere stated that he has stored Roori in the suit property. (PW1) Naresh Kumar, Draftsman who had prepared site plans Exs. P1 and P2 in his cross-examination stated that in the disputed site shown in findings of the learned trial Court on this issue and the same are hereby affirmed." 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that it is proved on the record that a large chunk of the site in question was purchased from Sucha Singh vide sale deeds Ex.P3 to Ex.P5. He further submitted that since the consideration was less than Rs. 100/-, therefore, no registered sale deed was required and the first Appellate Court has wrongly made the observation that such document does require compulsory registration. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the site in question has been given to the plaintiff in a family partition and the plaintiff is in established possession of the site in question over which he has constructed a house and the possession of the plaintiff is further established from the report of the Local Commissioner Ex.PW5/A. 3. I have considered all the three submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. So far as the first contention raised by the learned counsel is concerned, even if it is taken as correct, still the case of the appellant-plaintiff is not going to be advanced for the reason that the so- called family settlement has not been proved. Further, the possession of the plaintiff is also not established. The report of the Local Commissioner has been rightly disbelieved by the Courts below. The Local Commissioner has formulated an impression (Andaja) that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. It has been rightly remarked by the first Appellate Court that the observation of the Local Commissioner regarding possession of the plaintiff-appellant over the site in dispute was a guess work. 4. It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the case of the defendants was that the site in question belongs to Gram Panchayat, but there is no satisfactory evidence. The plaintiff cannot succeed on this plea. He has to succeed on his own strength and not on the weakness of the defendants. 4. It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the case of the defendants was that the site in question belongs to Gram Panchayat, but there is no satisfactory evidence. The plaintiff cannot succeed on this plea. He has to succeed on his own strength and not on the weakness of the defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that he got this property on the basis of family settlement, which is not proved. Secondly, his possession over the site in question on the date of the institution of the suit has not been established for the reasons which I have already quoted above. Hence, I do not see any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.