Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 212 (PNJ)

Sukh Ram v. Municipal Corporation, Faridabad

2018-01-17

JASWANT SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT Mr. Jaswant Singh, J.:- Plaintiffs/appellants are in second appeal, aggreived against the concurrent findings returned by the Courts below, whereby their suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction has been dismissed by learned Civil Judge(Jr. Divn.), Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 23.09.2014 and the findings thereof have been affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 22.7.2016. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that they are claiming ownership over the suit property, being the proprietors of village Pali and have been in possession over the same since the year 1980. It is further argued that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Suraj Bhan Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. [2017(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1807 (DB) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1106] : 2017(2) PLR 605 , the land does not vest in Municipal Committee until and unless compensation is paid to the proprietary body/individual land holders of the proprietary body because admittedly, the suit property was within the limits of Gram Panchayat. 3. After hearing learned Counsel for the appellants and perusing the paper book with his able assistance, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. 4. The case set out by the appellants/plaintiffs is that the property in question was earlier owned by Village Pali but later on vested in Gram Panchayat and now with Municipal Corporation, Faridabad. As per the plaintiffs, they are the proprietors of the village and have remained in possession of the suit property measuring 24 Kanals and thus, they are entitled to be declared as owners in possession of the suit property. However, a perusal of the impugned judgments and Decrees would show that the appellants have miserably failed to prove that the suit property was ever under the ownership of any of the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs-appellants. It is also an admitted fact that vide notification dated 01.06.1992, the suit land vested with the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and thereafter, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad has been recorded as owner of the property in question. Although, the plaintiffs/appellants are claiming themselves to be the proprietors of the village but as stated earlier, no documentary evidence has been brought on record by them to prove themselves as owners. Although, the plaintiffs/appellants are claiming themselves to be the proprietors of the village but as stated earlier, no documentary evidence has been brought on record by them to prove themselves as owners. Even the jamabandies that have been placed on record by plaintiffs-appellants, do not relate to the suit property and as such the courts below have rightly held that no document of title has been placed on record by the plaintiffs which would co-relate the suit property with them. 5. In view of the above, it cannot be held that the plaintiffs are the proprietors of the village and could claim the land to be their own merely on the basis of long possession over the suit property. As far as the Judgment relied upon by Ld. Counsel for appellants-plaintiffs is concerned, I am afraid the said Judgment also does not come his rescue. As per para 218(e) of the said judgment, if a land, which comes into Municipal limits by enlargement of a municipal area, which was earlier a Shamlat land or recorded as Shamlat Deh simplicitor, would not entail anybody in its possession to seek compensation because the same would escheat to the State. Similarly, as per para 218(f) of the Judgment, compensation can be granted only to those land owners who are able to show semblance of ownership/vestige of title on the property. However, as held earlier, the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove the same. 6. Keeping in view the foregoing discussion, finding no question of law much less substantial question of law arising for determination in the present second appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. ———————— Daljeet Kaur v. Harmeet Singh 2018(1) Law Herald (P&H) 660 (DB) : 2018 LawHerald.Org 672 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA [DIVISON BENCH] Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M.S. Bedi Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill FAO-3852 of 2016 and CMM-96-2016 Daljeet Kaur v. Harmeet Singh {Decided on 30/01/2018} For the Appellant: Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.24--Maintenance--Guess work of income--Husband is an able bodied person having a family RO and water purifier business--The income of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- has been admitted orally but it has not been disclosed in the reply of husband--Rs.10,000/- per month awarded as maintenance pendente lite along with litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-. Puneet Gupta, Advocate. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.24--Maintenance--Guess work of income--Husband is an able bodied person having a family RO and water purifier business--The income of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- has been admitted orally but it has not been disclosed in the reply of husband--Rs.10,000/- per month awarded as maintenance pendente lite along with litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-. (Para 6) JUDGMENT CMM-96-2016 This is an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the appellant-wife claiming a sum of Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.35,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite, claiming that the respondent-husband is doing the business of manufacturing RO Water Purifiers and sale purchase/repair of the same and is earning Rs.1 lac per month. She claims that she is unable to maintain herself and she has got no source of income. 2. The respondent-husband has claimed that he is earning not more than Rs.10,000/- and is assisting his father in the RO business. 3. We have heard counsel for both the parties. 4. No specific documentary evidence has been brought on the record to enable this Court to form a conclusion regarding the actual income of the respondent-husband but since the family business of RO has been admitted and the actual income of the company or the income of individual respondent-husband has not been disclosed, a bit of estimation would be permissible, in said circumstances, to determine his income. 5. The respondent-husband is an able bodied person having a family RO business. The income of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- has been admitted orally but it has not been disclosed in the reply. 6. In view of above circumstances, we deem it appropriate to grant maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.10,000/- per month. The said amount will be payable with effect from the date of application i.e. June, 2016. The litigation expenses are assessed as Rs.50,000/-. 7. Application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, is allowed in aforesaid manner. 8. For payment of entire arrears of maintenance calculated till 31.05.2018 and the litigation expenses, adjourned to 10.05.2018. 9. Record of the trial Court be also requisitioned for said date.