Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2031 (PNJ)

Chetan Singh v. Jarnail Singh

2006-05-10

PRITAM PAL

body2006
JUDGMENT Pritam Pal, J. - This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant") against the judgment and decree dated 25.8.1981 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Muktsar, whereby the suit for permanent injunction, filed by the plaintiff-respondents (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs") was decreed and the same were then confirmed in appeal by the learned First Appellate Court vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 3.10.1983. 2. In nutshell, the facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated thus : 3. Jarnail Singh etc., plaintiffs, had filed a suit for permanent injunction against Chetan Singh, defendant, restraining him from taking forcible possession of agricultural land measuring 3 kanals 1 marla, as detailed in the heading of the plaint. The said land was purchased by the plaintiffs through a registered sale-deed dated July 2, 1979 from Sarup Singh son of Gurdial Singh. Immediately, after the registration of the sale-deed, the possession of the suit land was delivered to them (plaintiffs). 4. On the other hand, the case of the defendant before the Courts below was that he had been in adverse possession over the suit land continuously for the last 15 years and as such, the plaintiffs had lost their ownership rights of the said land. Even the possession of Sarup Singh, vendor, was also denied. 5. Learned trial Court, on the pleadings of the parties, had framed the following issues :- "1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners and in possession of the suit land ? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction prayed for ? OPP 3. Whether the defendant had become the owner of the land in dispute by way of adverse possession ? OPD 4. What is the effect of not mentioning the land in dispute in para No. 1 of the plaint ? OPD 5. Relief." 6. After recording the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial Court discussed issue Nos. 1 and 3 together and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were owners in possession over the suit land. Ultimately, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed and as stated above, the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court were also affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court. 7. 1 and 3 together and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were owners in possession over the suit land. Ultimately, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed and as stated above, the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court were also affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court. 7. This is how, feeling aggrieved, the defendant has come up in this appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the Courts below. 9. The only noticeable point of argument raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the defendant (appellant herein) is that learned Courts below have misread the evidence adduced by the parties. In that behalf, he submitted that in the copy of Nehri Girdawri for the year 1977 (Ex. D-1), prepared by the Canal authorities, the defendant has been shown to be in possession over the suit land. He then also submitted that Sampuran Singh, father of the plaintiffs, who appeared as PW-1 in this case, has admitted that Sarup Singh, Vendor, was not in possession of the suit land. In the end, it was also argued that in this case, the sale-deed, dated July 2, 1979, on the basis of which, the plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the owners in possession has also not been brought on the file. Faced with such a situation, the learned Courts below have erred in law while decreeing the suit for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs (respondents herein) has refuted the aforesaid points of arguments raised on behalf of the defendant. 11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and find no force in any of the points of arguments raised on behalf of the defendant, inasmuch as, in the earlier copy of Jamabandi (Ex. P-2) (Record of Rights) for the year 1976-77, Sarup Singh (Vendor) is recorded to be the owner in possession of the suit land, which was purchased by him in the year 1975 from one Nihal Singh. Thereafter, the mutation was sanctioned in his favour, a copy of which has been proved on the file as Ex. P-3. P-2) (Record of Rights) for the year 1976-77, Sarup Singh (Vendor) is recorded to be the owner in possession of the suit land, which was purchased by him in the year 1975 from one Nihal Singh. Thereafter, the mutation was sanctioned in his favour, a copy of which has been proved on the file as Ex. P-3. On July 2, 1979, the suit land was sold by Sarup Singh in favour of the plaintiffs and ultimately, mutation No. 2317 was also sanctioned in their favour. The entries in red ink in that behalf have been duly incorporated in the Jamabandi (Ex. P-2), copy of which was issued by the Revenue Patwari on August 6, 1980. Copies of Khasra Girdhawri prepared by the Revenue authorities, Ex. P-4 and P-5 also indicate that after the purchase of the suit land by the plaintiffs, entries pertaining to the possession over the said land were changed from the name of Sarup Singh (Vendor) in favour of the plaintiffs. All this go a long way to show that the entries in the revenue record were made in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis of sale-deed dated July 2, 1979. As per Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, presumption of truth is attached to the entries made in the Jamabandi (Record of Rights), which is prepared only after due verification made by the superior revenue officers. In this view of the matter, it does not make any difference if the original sale-deed dated July 2, 1979 was not placed on the file of the learned trial Court. 12. I have also gone through the statement of PW-1 Sampuran Singh, father of the plaintiffs, recorded by the learned trial Court and find that the said witness no where admitted the possession of the defendant over the suit land, as contended by the learned counsel for the defendant. In fact, a suggestion was given to the witness by the counsel representing the defendant that the defendant was in possession over the suit land for the last 15 years. If we read the statement of PW-1 as a whole, then it is categorically made out that the plaintiffs were in possession over the suit land. In fact, the said witness had nowhere denied the possession of Sarup Singh, Vendor, over the suit land. 13. Now, coming to Nehri Girdawri Ex. If we read the statement of PW-1 as a whole, then it is categorically made out that the plaintiffs were in possession over the suit land. In fact, the said witness had nowhere denied the possession of Sarup Singh, Vendor, over the suit land. 13. Now, coming to Nehri Girdawri Ex. D-1, prepared by Canal authorities, it only indicates about the factum of irrigating the land in the year 1977 i.e., about three years prior to the filing of the suit. Moreover, it does not indicate the suit land, which is measuring 3 kanals 1 marla only comprised in Khasra No. 17/2 of Rectangle No. 42. Such kind of entries incorporated in Ex. D-1 by the official of the Canal department cannot be given preference over the entries made in the revenue record, which is prepared by the Revenue Patwari and then also verified by the Superior revenue officers, as proved in this case in the Jamabandi Ex. P-2 and Khasra Girdawaris Ex. P-4 and P-5. In this view of my foregoing discussion, it cannot be said that the Courts below have misread the evidence or given any perverse finding. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant has also not been able to make out any substantial question of law, which could be gone into by this Court. Thus, taking an over all view in the matter, this appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.