Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1162 (PNJ)

Sadhu Ram v. Sawan Ram

2006-03-20

VINEY MITTAL

body2006
Judgment VINEY MITTAL, J. 1. For the reasons given in the application, the order dated March 9, 2006 is recalled. The main appeal is restored back to its original number. With the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant, the arguments in the main appeal have been heard. 2. This order shall dispose of two appeal being R. S. A. No.3298 of 2002 and R. S. A. No.3299 of 2002 as both the appeals have been filed by the same appellant- Sadhu Ram and the defendants are also the same. The subject matter of the two suits is also the same property. 3. A suit was filed by Sadhu Ram for possession of the suit property. It was claimed by him that he was owner in possession of the suit property and that the father of the defendants Bakhtawar Singh taking advantage of his influential position in the village had got the revenue entries changed in his name. Thereafter in the year 1999, the possession of the suit property was taken forcibly by the defendants. Consequently, Sadhu Ram claimed that he was entitled to the possession of the suit property after removal of the gohara and malba. He also claimed that he was entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs.30/- per month. Another suit was filed by Sawan Ram and others for declaration. They sought a declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit property. 4. The permanent injunction was also sought by them against Sadhu Ram for restraining him not to interfere in the suit property in any manner. Sawan Ram and others pleaded that they are owners in possession of the suit property and had inherited the same from their father Bakhtawar singh through a will dated May 22, 1980. Bakhtawar Singh had purchased the said property in a Court auction on March 23,1957 for an amount of Rs.100/-. The said sale was confirmed in his favour on April 30, 1957. Sawan Ram claimed that earlier Bakhtawar Singh and thereafter the defendants have been in continuous possession of the suit property since 1957. The learned trial Court clubbed the two suits together. The suit filed by Sadhu Ram was dismissed by the trial court whereas the suit filed by Sawan Ram was decreed. Sawan Ram claimed that earlier Bakhtawar Singh and thereafter the defendants have been in continuous possession of the suit property since 1957. The learned trial Court clubbed the two suits together. The suit filed by Sadhu Ram was dismissed by the trial court whereas the suit filed by Sawan Ram was decreed. Sawan Ram and others were held to be owners in possession of the suit property having been purchased by bakhtawar Singh in a Court auction on March 23, 1957. 5. Two separate appeals were filed by Sadhu Ram before the learned first Appellate Court. The learned first Appellate Court reappraised the evidence and came to the conclusion that the boundaries of the suit property, as reflected in Ex. D.1 were same as the suit property. It also held that Sawan Ram and others were owners in possession of the suit property. Consequently, both the appeals field by Sadhu Ram were dismissed. 6. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal Dismissed.