Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1034 (PNJ)

Rattan Singh v. Sita Ram

2003-07-30

V.K.BALI

body2003
Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. This is defendants second appeal who had succeeded before learned trial Court inasmuch as, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed but the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was reversed by the First Appellate Court. Thus, to challenge the decree passed by learned First Appellate Court, present regular second appeal was filed. 2. The bare minimum facts that need a necessary mention reveal that Sita Ram, Prita Ram and Natha Ram sons of Siri Ram purchased the land, subject matter of dispute in the present case, from Jiwa son of Sampuran Singh, Amar Kaur widow of Sampuran Singh and Jaswant Kaur daughter of Sampuran Singh vide a registered sale deed dated 6.8.1973. It is not disputed that the original owner of this land was one Hira Singh, who was a big land owner. The State in the year 1961 declared the suit land as surplus area and allotted the same to Jiwa son of Sampuran Singh, Amar Kaur widow of Sampuran Singh and Jaswant kaur. 3. Concededly, as well, it is this part of the surplus area of Hira Singh which was allotted to Jiwa, Amar Kaur and Jaswant Kaur, who, in turn, sold the same to the plaintiffs Sita Ram, Prita Ram and Natha Ram. When despite registered sale deed, the respondents were unable to get possession of the land, they filed a suit for possession. Learned trial Court, on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: 1. Whether the land in dispute was declared surplus in the life time of Hira Singh the father of defendants and was allotted to Jiwa Singh son of Sampuran Singh, Jaswant Kaur daughter of Sampuran Singh and Amar Kaur widow of Sampuran Singh by the State and the possession was delivered to them? OPP 2. Whether Jiwa Singh, Amar Kaur and Jaswant Kaur sold 3/4 share of the land measuring 8 bighas 6 biswas to the plaintiffs vide registered sale deed dated 6.8.1973 for a consideration of Rs. 2000/-? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiffs had got possession of the land at the time of purchase and are entitled to get back the possession? OPP. 4. Whether the defendants are in possession of the land in dispute in pursuance of the agreement dated 12.6.1968 and 19.12.1969? OPD 5. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP 6. 2000/-? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiffs had got possession of the land at the time of purchase and are entitled to get back the possession? OPP. 4. Whether the defendants are in possession of the land in dispute in pursuance of the agreement dated 12.6.1968 and 19.12.1969? OPD 5. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 7. Whether the plaint is not properly verified, if so its effect? OPD 7A. Whether the rights of the allottees of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have extinguished by lapse of time as alleged? 7B. Whether the sale in dispute in favour of the plaintiffs is illegal, collusive and not bona fide? OPD. 1C. Whether the possession of the defendant is protected under Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act? OPD. 8. Relief. 4. As mentioned above, the issues aforesaid culminated into a judgment and decree by virtue of which, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. Aggrieved, plaintiffs filed appeal with the result, as indicated above. 5. The controversy as is raked at this stage, only centres around issue No. 1 and that too to the later part of the issue pertaining to possession. The plea of the appellant-defendant was and continues to be that he is in possession of the disputed land, even though it was declared surplus and allotted/sold in the manner aforesaid, he claims title over the land on account of his hostile possession, being adverse to the interest of the real owners, thus, nurturing into ownership. Learned first appellate Court, while reversing findings of the trial Court on the issue aforesaid, held as follows:- "Assailing the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 1, that the possession of the suit land was not delivered to the allottees i.e. Jiwa Singh, Jaswant Kaur and Amar Kaur, it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the lower court took the erroneous view by relying on the documents Ex.DX, the copy of the jamabandi for the year 1962-63, Ex.P7 copy of the Khasra Girdawri from Kharif 1963 to Rabi 1968. The learned counsel also argued that the copy of the Jamabandi Ex.PZ of the year 1967-68 does not show that Abey Singh and Rattan Singh defendants are in hostile possession of the suit land, rather their possession is permissible. The learned counsel also argued that the copy of the Jamabandi Ex.PZ of the year 1967-68 does not show that Abey Singh and Rattan Singh defendants are in hostile possession of the suit land, rather their possession is permissible. According to the learned counsel that even for the sake of arguments, even it is held that the possession was not delivered to Jiwa Singh, Jaswant Singh and Amar Kaur allottees under the allotment, even then the plaintiffs are entitled to the possession on the basis of the title by virtue of the sale deed Ex.P1 executed by Jiwa Singh and others. In my opinion, the argument of the learned counsel carries weight. A perusal of the documents referred to above shows that the possession of Abey Singh and Rattan Singh was as co-sharers and it was never hostile against their father Hira Singh. Even otherwise a copy of the jamabandi Ex.P3 shows that in the column of cultivation i.e. column No. 5, Amar Kaur widow, Jiwa Singh, Sher Singh and Jaswant Kaur have been recorded in possession of the property as vendees. The mutation Ex.P4 indicates that Hira Singh died after 31.12.70 and in the presence of Hira Singh, the possession of Abey Singh and Rattan could not be treated as hostile against their father. The mutation Ex.PS again indicates that the land was mutated in the name of the allottee. The copy of the jamabandi Ex.P7 for the year 1977-78 again shows that Amar Kaur, Jiwa Singh, Jaswant Kaur have been recorded in possession of the property as vendees. The document Ex.DX relied by the counsel for the respondent as well as by the trial court i.e. the jamabandi for the year 1962-63 shows that Abey Singh and Rattan Singh have been recorded in possession of the land as sons of the owner and it cannot be said that their possession was hostile. The report dated 25.11.1964 in the Roznamcha again reveals that the possession was given to the plaintiffs although the actual possession could not be granted because the crop was standing thereon. The khasra girdawari Ex.D2 again does not indicate that Abey Singh and Rattan Singh were in hostile possession and the land in question during the life time of their father Hira Singh. The khasra girdawari Ex.D2 again does not indicate that Abey Singh and Rattan Singh were in hostile possession and the land in question during the life time of their father Hira Singh. Assuming for the sake of arguments, that the allottees were not given the possession under the allotment even then the plaintiffs can sue on the basis of title because they had purchased their land from Jiwa Singh and others by virtue of Ex.P1. Therefore. I hold that the possession of Abey Singh and Rattan Singh was never as of their right, but permissible under Hira Singh." 6. I have heard Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, learned counsel representing the appellants and have examined the records of the case. No exception can at all be had to the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court, as extracted above. The original land owner Hira Singh had, admittedly, died and even though it is not certain on what exact date he died, but it is conceded position that he had died on or after 30.12.1970. At that time, the defendants, who happen to be sons of Hira Singh were in possession. Even if the plea that they continued to be in possession is found to be correct, there cannot be any exception to the findings recorded by learned Appellate Court. 7. Besides the fact that the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court are unassailable, this Court also finds no substantial question of law that may be involved in this second appeal. It rather appears to be a case where a big land owner or his heirs have been able to defeat the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. 8. As mentioned above, the land was declared surplus way back in the year 1961. Be it allottees or vendees from them, they were kept away from the possession for such a long time.This appeal, in considered view of this Court, deserves to be dismissed. So ordered.