Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2944 (PNJ)

Shimla Rani v. Manoranjan @ Manoranjana Randhawa

2017-12-12

AVNEESH JHINGAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. 1. The present appeal is at the behest of the defendants being aggrieved of the plaintiff's suit for possession and consequential relief of permanent injunction being decreed by the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their original position in the civil suit. 3. The facts, as stated in the plaint, are that a suit for possession of house comprised in khewat/khata No. 422/658 bearing khasra No. 8799/8347/7934/2607 (0-10) situated within the revenue estate of village Banur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, and suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, transferring or raising any type of construction in the suit land, was filed. 4. The plaintiff was a house wife and her husband had retired from Indian Army as a Colonel. The plot in question was previously owned by Shri Ram Lal, who sold the same to Shri Harminder Singh vide sale deed dated 02.08.1985. Harminder Singh executed a power of attorney on 16.11.1987 in favour of Shri Sukhbir Singh Randhawa. The general power of attorney of Harminder Singh executed a sale deed dated 12.06.1997 in favour of the plaintiff. Since then, the plaintiff was stated to be owner of the plot. It was alleged that the defendants were members of land grabbing gang, who colluded with Jaswinder Singh and Nirmal Singh and got prepared a false and fabricated agreement to sell dated 27.08.2003 from one Harvinder Kaur. It was stated that neither Harvinder Kaur nor the defendants had any right or title with the plot. The agreement to sell was prepared in favour of Shimla Rani (defendant No.1). It was stated that the plaintiff resided along with her husband at various places due to job limitation and could not look after the plot. It was stated that the plaintiff became owner of the plot on 12.06.1997. Prior to that, her husband Sukhbir Singh Randhawa was in physical possession of the plot. In the year 2005, when the plaintiff along with her husband went to Banur to look after the plot, they saw that there was no vacant plot and Shimla Rani had encroached upon the plot and constructed two rooms. An application was moved for demarcation before Tehsildar, Rajpura. The property was demarcated. FIR No. 109 dated 20.08.2005 was registered against Shimla Rani. An application was moved for demarcation before Tehsildar, Rajpura. The property was demarcated. FIR No. 109 dated 20.08.2005 was registered against Shimla Rani. When the plaintiff asked for possession, the defendants filed a suit for permanent injunction against the husband of the plaintiff, but later on the same was withdrawn. On threat from the defendants to sell the plot, the suit was filed. 5. On notice, the defendants filed written statement raising preliminary objections. On merits, the defendants denied the sale of said plot to Harminder Singh and execution of general power of attorney in favour of Sukhbir Singh Randhawa. It was stated that the defendants owned the said plot and previously, it was owned and possessed by Shri Tota Ram since 1947. Tota Ram was father of defendant No.2 and father-in-law of defendant No.1. It was stated that the defendants have inherited the suit property from Tota Ram and they have electric connection, telephone connection and even the ration card at the address of the said plot. It was denied that any demarcation was ever done. 6. The learned trial court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for possession of house as described in the heading of the plaint? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder and non joinder of necessary parties? OPD 4. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 6. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? OPD 7. Relief. 7. In order to support her suit, the plaintiff appeared as PW.1. Sukhbir Singh appeared as PW.2. Darshan Singh registry clerk and Darshan Kumar Sansodhia Deed Writer appeared as PW.3 and PW.4, respectively. Kesar Singh Kanungo deposed as PW.5. In order to rebut the suit, Shimla Rani defendant No.1 stepped into the witness box as DW.1. Gurbax Singh appeared as DW.2. Gurmukh Singh deposed as DW.3 and Sukhwinder Singh, Additional Ahlmad was produced as DW.4. 8. The learned trial court decided issues No.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. Issues No.3 to 6 were not pressed and were decided against the defendants. The net result was that vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.2013, the suit was decreed. 9. Gurmukh Singh deposed as DW.3 and Sukhwinder Singh, Additional Ahlmad was produced as DW.4. 8. The learned trial court decided issues No.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. Issues No.3 to 6 were not pressed and were decided against the defendants. The net result was that vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.2013, the suit was decreed. 9. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree, the defendants filed an appeal. Learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 02.08.2016 dismissed the appeal. Hence, the Regular Second Appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the defendants, while arguing the appeal, has mainly challenged the sale deed by Ram Lal in favour of Harminder Singh. She argued that the said sale deed was not duly proved by the plaintiff. She further argued that the general power of attorney given by Harminder Singh was in favour of the husband of the plaintiff and hence, her title with regard to the suit land was not proved. She contended that the attesting witnesses of the sale deed were not produced. Neither the vendor nor the vendee appeared to prove the sale deed. She candidly stated that she is not in a position to establish the title of the defendants on the suit land. No other contention was raised. 11. In the appeal, two questions of law have been framed, but the learned counsel, instead of addressing arguments on these questions, has only raised the aforesaid contentions. 12. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the defendants cannot be accepted. 13. The plaintiff produced Darshan Singh registry clerk as PW.3 to prove the sale deed dated 12.06.1997 executed by Sukhbir Singh Randhawa in favour of the plaintiff. The original sale deed dated 02.08.1985 executed by Ram Lal in favour of Harminder Singh was also exhibited. The general power of attorney executed by Harminder Singh in favour of husband of the plaintiff was duly proved. It is important to note that none of the executants of the above said documents had denied execution of the sale deed or general power of attorney. The jamabandi for the year 2006-07 was placed on record by the plaintiff. Jamabandi showed her to be owner in possession of the plot in question. 14. The law is well settled that entries in the revenue record raise rebuttable presumption. The jamabandi for the year 2006-07 was placed on record by the plaintiff. Jamabandi showed her to be owner in possession of the plot in question. 14. The law is well settled that entries in the revenue record raise rebuttable presumption. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Chander Vs. Bhim Singh and others, 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 685, wherein it has been held as under :- “22. Revenue entries reflect the rights of the parties as opposed to conferring rights and raise rebuttable presumptions as to their correctness. They reflect an existing state of affairs, namely, an existing title or a state of possession. Entries in revenue records neither confer nor deprive a person of his title, whether joint or separate. Rectangle numbers and Killa numbers are reveue measures, used by revenue authorities to identify and describe fields that constitute the ownership of a land owner. A holding may be divided into different Khewats, Khataunis, rectangles and killas/khasras all bearing different numbers. Where parties are joint owners or co-sharers, the land would comprise of a Khewat or khewats, different khataunis, rectangles and/or khasra/killa numbers. Thus, where a group of land owners holds land in joint ownership and are reflected as owners in common of the khewat, commonly known as the joint khewat, they would continue to remain owners in possession of the land, though described as being situated in different khataunis, rectangles and khasra/killa numbers. Division of land into different rectangles, khasra or killa numbers does not alter the nature of property held in common or the rights of co-sharers flowing there from. The Full Bench in Lachhman Singh's case (supra), disregarded the nature of joint property and by placing undue reliance upon artificial divisions of land meant to identify land, erred while holding that a vendee, who purchases land from a joint khewat by reference to specific rectangles and khasra numbers, does not become a cosharer in the entire joint khewat.” 15. In the present case, the said presumption was raised in favour of the plaintiff and the same was not rebutted by the defendants. 16. The suit land was duly demarcated on an application made by the plaintiff. The said demarcation report was produced as Ex.PW5/2, which was duly proved by PW.5 Kesar Singh Kanungo. 17. In the present case, the said presumption was raised in favour of the plaintiff and the same was not rebutted by the defendants. 16. The suit land was duly demarcated on an application made by the plaintiff. The said demarcation report was produced as Ex.PW5/2, which was duly proved by PW.5 Kesar Singh Kanungo. 17. As per the above discussion, the plaintiff proved her case of being owner of the plot in question. 18. The defendants raised an issue that the suit property was owned and possessed by their forefathers since 1947. The said plea was mere a bald assertion and was not substantiated. Even while arguing the appeal, learned counsel fairly stated that she is not relying upon this stand taken by the defendants before the trial court. 19. The sale deed and the subsequent general power of attorney were duly proved. The revenue entries showing plaintiff to be owner of suit land was not rebutted by the defendants. Defendants have not proved the plea set up by them in the written statement. In such circumstances, the contention raised in appeal is rejected. 20. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned first appellate court. She could not refer to any question of law much less substantial question of law which is sine qua non for this court to exercise its appellate power under Section 100 of the CPC. No other argument was raised. 21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons afore-mentioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal is bereft of merit and without any substance, thus it must fail. 22. Resultantly, the instant second appeal is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.