Gobind Singh vs Improvement Trust and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—This is second appeal by plaintiff No. 1 only.

Suit was filed by appellant and proforma respondents No. 3 to 6 against respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e. Improvement Trust, Ludhiana and its Chairman, alleging that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit house comprised of khasra No. 65//11 as their predecessor Sukhdev Singh (father of plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 and husband of plaintiff No. 5) had purchased it from Sajjan Singh vide registered sale deed dated 5.9.1989 and since then Sukhdev Singh and after his death plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit property. Defendants without any right, title or interest therein threatened to take forcible possession of the suit property from the plaintiffs after demolishing the house. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property and from taking forcible possession thereof.

The defendants, inter alia, pleaded that the suit land had already been acquired in ''475 Acre Development Scheme'' vide notification u/s 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act published in Government Gazette dated 2.7.1976, Award for acquisition of the land was passed on 4.6.1981. The alleged sale deed in the year 1989 in favour of plaintiffs'' predecessor is not legal and valid. Defendants are owners in possession of the suit land since after its acquisition. Plaintiffs are neither owners nor in possession thereof. Various other pleas were also raised.

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 8.11.2005 decreed the plaintiffs'' suit restraining defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property except in due course of law. Question of ownership of suit property was not decided by the trial court and the suit was decreed to the aforesaid extent only on the finding that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property. First appeal preferred by the defendants has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 25.9.2008 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, only plaintiff No. 1 has preferred the instant second appeal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property as their predecessor Sukhdev Singh had purchased it from its previous owner Sajjan Singh. The contention is completely devoid of merit. Defendants have produced notification of the Government Gazette Ex. DW1/A sanctioning the scheme of the Improvement Trust, award of Land Acquisition Collector Ex. DW1/C and report dated 19.6.1984 Ex. DW1/D regarding delivery of possession of the acquired land including suit land to the Improvement Trust. There is also notification dated 2.7.1976 Ex. DW1/A regarding sanction of the scheme.

Learned trial court mis-read and mis-interpreted the report Ex. DW1/D regarding delivery of possession. It is mentioned in the said report that some construction existed in khasra No. 65/11 and 20. The trial court accordingly held that Improvement Trust did not come in possession of the said houses which were in possession of some one else. However, the trial court did not read the aforesaid report properly. It has been specifically mentioned therein that un-authorized construction existing in the aforesaid khasra numbers was demolished and possession of the land was delivered to Improvement Trust and the owners had taken possession of their malba. It is, thus, apparent that possession of the suit land alongwith other acquired land was delivered to the defendants on 19.6.1984 and consequently, defendants became owners in possession of the suit land since then. As a necessary upshot thereof, the sale deed dated 5.9.1989 executed thereafter by Sajjan Singh in favour of the plaintiffs'' predecessor Sukhdev Singh is completely illegal and has no effect on ownership or possession of the suit land. The finding of the lower appellate court that the defendants are in possession of the suit land and the plaintiffs are not in possession is perfectly legal and valid and fully justified by the evidence on record.

Consequently, the said finding does not warrant interference in the second appeal.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find that no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.