Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 478 (PNJ)

Harnek Singh v. Tek Singh

2003-04-01

VINEY MITTAL

body2003
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by plaintiff Harnek Singh. He is aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated October 3, 1979 passed by the learned District Judge, Faridkot whereby the appeal filed by defendants Tek Singh and Ors. was allowed and the decree of the learned trial Court dated August 30, 1978 whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed was set aside. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff Harnek Singh was dismissed by the learned District Judge. 2. There was one Ghuman Singh son of Bhanga Singh. He had two wives Dharmo and Nand Kaur. Plaintiff-Harnek Singh was born by Dharmo whereas defendants Tek Singh, Bhagwan Kaur, Mann Kaur, Gurdial Kaur and Gurdev Kaur were born by Nand Kaur. 3. Ghuman Singh had lands in two villages i.e. Kilianwali and Pathrala. The dispute in the present case pertains to the land in village kilianwali. Ghuman Singh sold 145 kanals of land including the land in dispute vide sale deed dated March 30, 1965 to Santokh Singh and Kishan Singh. Subsequently, the said vendees Kishan Singh and Santokh Singh agreed to sell that land vide agreement dated May 6, 1968 to defendants No. 1, 2 and 8 to 11 i.e. the defendant Tek Singh, his four sisters and his brother Gurdev Singhs widow Dhan Kaur. In pursuance of the aforesaid agreement, the land was sold to them on June 1, 1968. However, the four daughters of Ghuman Singh, namely Bhagwan Kaur, Mann Kaur alias Sujan Kaur, Gurdial Kaur and Gurdev Kaur gifted out their share in the aforesaid land vide gift deeds to the other members of the family of their mother Nand Kaur. The aforesaid gift deeds were executed by them on March 10, 1969. Gurdev Kaur, the other daughter of. Nand Kaur executed gift deed on June 6, 1996 in favour of Darbara Singh alia Gulzara Singh and Bara Singh son of Gurdev Singh. Ghuman Singh sold some of his land earlier on January 9, 1958 to his son Tek Singh. The aforesaid sale was challenged by plaintiff Harnek Singh. The same was set aside vide judgment and decree dated August 13, 1959. Ghuman Singh sold some of his land earlier on January 9, 1958 to his son Tek Singh. The aforesaid sale was challenged by plaintiff Harnek Singh. The same was set aside vide judgment and decree dated August 13, 1959. Under these circumstances, the present suit was filed by Harnek Singh to the effect that Ghuman Singh and his other members of the family from his wife Nand Kaur had made all possible endeavour to exclude him from the property situated in village Kilanwali, which was ancestral in nature. It was stated that the said deed Ex.D8 in favour of Kishan Singh and Santokh Singh was a sham transaction, as also the subsequent sale of the land by them in favour of the defendant Tek Singh and others, including the alleged gift deeds executed by the four daughters in favour of different members of the family of Nand Kaur, as aforesaid. On that basis, the plaintiff claimed that the aforesaid alienations, were not binding upon him and in any case Ghuman Singh had given him 50 kanals 16 marlas of land in village Kilianwali and, therefore, the land in dispute was stated to have been allotted to him in lieu thereof during consolidation operations. On that basis it was claimed by the plaintiff that even because of the family settlement or by virtue of adverse possession, he was the owner of the suit property and he had filed a suit seeking declaration to that effect. As a consequential relief, he claimed a permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents for restraining them from interfering in his possession. 4. The defendants contested the suit. It was denied by them that plaintiff Harnek Singh was given any land by Ghuman Singh in any family settlement or that he was in adverse possession of the same. Various other pleas regarding the bar of limitation, improper valuation for the purposes of court fee and, jurisdiction and non-joinder of necessary parties were also raised. 5. The trial court decreed the suit. The defendants felt aggrieved and they filed the first appeal before the learned District Judge. Vide judgment and decree dated October 3, 1979, the learned District Judge accepted the appeal of the defendants and consequently after setting aside the judgment of the learned trial Court, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. The plaintiff has now approached this Court through the present appeal. 7. Vide judgment and decree dated October 3, 1979, the learned District Judge accepted the appeal of the defendants and consequently after setting aside the judgment of the learned trial Court, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. The plaintiff has now approached this Court through the present appeal. 7. The learned first appellate Court on the basis of the evidence on the record has come to a firm finding of fact that Harnek Singh was not proved to be the owner of the land in dispute inasmuch as no document pertaining to any family settlement has been produced by him on the record. Since there was no evidence with regard to the family settlement, therefore, the aforesaid finding given by the learned first appellate court cannot be said to be against the record in any manner. With regard to the other plea of adverse possession raised by the plaintiff, even the aforesaid claim of the plaintiff has been rightly rejected by the learned first appellate Court. The revenue records Ex.P5 and P13 shows that the land in question is shown to be in the joint possession of Harnek Singh and Gurdev Singh sons of Ghuman Singh, The other document Ex.P2 is Jamabandi for the year 1965-66. In the aforesaid Jamabandi also, the possession shows to be permissive inasmuch as it is recorded as "Bawaja Haquq Pisri." 8. The aforesaid findings of fact do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.