Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 316 (PNJ)

Arjan Singh v. Hari Singh

2007-02-28

RAJIVE BHALLA

body2007
Judgment Rajive Bhalla, J. 1. Prayer in this appeal is, for setting aside the judgments and decrees, passed by the Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Rajpura dated 5.6.1981 and the Additional District Judge, Patiala dated 19.9.1983. 2. The plaintiff-appellants herein, filed a suit, for declaration that they were owners in possession of agricultural land measuring 64 kanals situated in Village Pandwala, Tehsil Rajpura, as described in the heading of the plaint. In the alternative, they prayed for grant of a relief of possession of the said land as per jamabandi for the year 1971 -72. 3. The aforementioned prayers were based, on a plea that the appellants ancestors; namely Narota and Mangal had acquired rights of ownership, with respect to land measuring 7 bighas 6 biswas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Kansal, pursuant to a judgment and decree dated 15.8.1904 passed by the Munsif, Ist Class, Ambala. It was also alleged that the aforementioned land was acquired for the Capital Project of Chandigarh and in lieu thereof land was allotted to the appellants in village Pandwala. This fact is sought to be fortified by an entry in a Roznamcha for the year 1952 and entries in the Khasra Girdwaris. 4. In opposition to the pleadings in the plaint., the respondents admitted the decree of 1904 but resisted the suit by pleading that the suit land was never allotted to the appellants, but was allotted to the respondents. The correctness of the entries in the Khasra Girdwaris were denied and it was pleaded that these wrong entries were subsequently rectified by the revenue authorities. 5. On the basis of the averments in the plaint, written statement and the replication filed to the written statement, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiffs arc owners in possession of the suit land? OPP (2) Whether the suit is not maintainable and is barred? OPD (3) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD (4) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit? OPD (5) Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD (6) Whether the plaint is not duly signed or verified by duly competent person? If so what effect? OPD (7) Relief. OPD (4) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit? OPD (5) Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD (6) Whether the plaint is not duly signed or verified by duly competent person? If so what effect? OPD (7) Relief. The main issue being issue No. 1, the learned trial Court, held that the appellants had failed to establish their ownership qua the suit land and dismissed the suit. The appeal filed by the appellants met the same fate. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellants filed questions of law, which were taken on record, vide orders dated 6.12.2006, as also on 12.2.2007. 6. Counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Courts below erred in ignoring the Roznamcha Ex.P-1 dated 26.6.1952. The Roznamcha clearly records delivery of possession, to the appellants predecessors-in-interest, namely; Norota and Mangal. The contents of Roznamcha have been misread and misconstrued by the Courts below. The appellants have been able to establish that the land in dispute was allotted to them. It is contended that as the correctness of the Roznamcha has not been challenged by the respondents, the learned Courts below erred in discarding the aforementioned document. It is further argued that the entries in the revenue record from the year 1959 to 1970 record the appellants in possession. These revenue entries, namely; Khasra Girdwaris, when read alongwith the Roznamcha, clearly establish that the appellants were owners in possession of the land in dispute as "Bashara Malkan". On the basis of the aforementioned arguments, it is contended that the judgments of the learned Courts below are perverse, contrary to law and, therefore, should be set aside. 7. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned Courts below perused the pleadings, appraised the evidence and thereafter, returned pure findings of fact, holding that the appellants had failed to establish their ownership or possession vis-a-vis, the land in dispute. The appellants have failed to lead any evidence to suggest that the land in dispute was ever allotted to them. The entries in the Roznamcha have been adversely commented upon by the first appellate Court, as it has been specifically noticed that the word "9" has been altered to 8. The appellants have failed to lead any evidence to suggest that the land in dispute was ever allotted to them. The entries in the Roznamcha have been adversely commented upon by the first appellate Court, as it has been specifically noticed that the word "9" has been altered to 8. It is contended that in absence or any evidence of ownership or any document in respect thereof, mere entries in the Khasra Girdwaris, would not confer title upon the appellants. The findings returned by the learned Courts below being pure finding of fact do not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the paper book, as also the large number of questions of law, framed by counsel for the appellants. 9. In my considered opinion, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration. The Courts below, perused the plaint, appraised the evidence and returned concurrent findings of fact that the appellants had failed to produce any evidence, whether in the shape of a letter of allotment or otherwise, to evidence allotment of the suit land to them. The entry in the Roznamcha, has been adversely commented upon by the first appellate Court. Even otherwise, the Roznamcha entry is not supported by any document of title whether in the shape of a letter of allotment or otherwise. As regards the entries in the Khasra Girdwaris, the prayer for the grant of an alternative relief of possession is an admission that the appellants were not in possession. A Khasra Girdwari merely records possession and no presumption of truth attaches thereto. They were rightly discarded by the learned Courts below. It would also be necessary to notice that these entries were subsequently rectified by the revenue authorities. The appellants have failed to produce any evidence, in support of their plea of ownership or of possession. In the absence of any question of law the concurrent findings of fact returned by the Courts below do not call for any interference. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.