Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 456 (PNJ)

Ashraf v. Suleman

2009-03-06

MAHESH GROVER

body2009
JUDGMENT Mahesh Grover, J.:- C.M.No.5484-C of 2006 The application is allowed and the delay of 28 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. R.S.A.No.2262 of 2006 This appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 12.11.2003 and 16.12.2005 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal (hereinafter described as ‘the trial Court’) and the Additional District Judge (Ad hoc) -cum- Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.III, Faridabad (referred to hereinafter as ‘the First Appellate Court’) whereby the suit and the appeal of the plaintiffs-appellants have been dismissed. 2. The appellants filed a suit for possession and also prayed for injunction on the ground that they are owners in possession of the suit property which was detailed in the plaint. It was pleaded that the suit property originally belonged to one Hazari son of Jom Khan, who died on 27.9.1996 and after his death, the appellants had inherited the same and mutation no.1663 was sanctioned in their favour and the defendants-respondents have no right or title over it, yet, they were trying to interfere in the same and consequently, the suit was filed. 3. The respondents appeared and filed their written statement denying the averments made by the appellants. It was pleaded that they were in peaceful possession of the suit property for the last more than thirty years and since it was open and hostile to the knowledge of the owner, they had become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. It was further pleaded that they had constructed residential house over the suit property and were residing therein and the appellants had no right or title over the same. The mutation no.1663 on the basis of which the appellants were claiming ownership possession over the suit property did not pertain to khasra no.78 which is in dispute. 4. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of Gait as detailed in para no.1 of the plaint?OPP 2. Whether the suit property has been inherited by the plaintiffs under mutation no.1663 after the death of Hazari?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present form?OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the present suit?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present form?OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the present suit?OPD 6. Whether the defendants are owners in possession of the suit property by way of adverse possession?OPD 7. Relief. 5. On appraisal of the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to suggest that the appellants were owners of the suit property and accordingly, their suit was dismissed. 6. In appeal, the findings of the trial Court were affirmed. 7. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the findings of the Courts below are perverse and, therefore, they deserve to be reversed. 9. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that the appeal is totally devoid of any merit. 11. The appellants have claimed ownership and possession over the suit property on the basis of mutation no.1663 which was sanctioned on 4.10.1996 in their favour after the death of original owner -Hazari on 27.9.1996. It is a settled principle of law that mutation itself does not create any title or right in favour of an individual. There is no other material from which it can be inferred that after the death of Hazari, the appellants inherited the suit property as is the case set up by them. In this view of the matter, the pure findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below cannot be faulted with. No substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal, which is dismissed. ----------------