Jeewa Singh vs Karnail Singh

M.M. Kumar, J.—This is defendant''s appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging judgment and

decree dated 6.11.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rupnagar reversing the judgment and decree dated 4.12.1998 of the Civil Judge

(Jr. Division), Rupnagar.

Plaintiffrespondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendantappellant from interfering in his ownership and possession of

the plot in suit on the ground that as per jamabandi (Ex. P5), for the year 199192 Khasra No. 59 styled as Gair Mumkin Dher is owned by the

proprietors and the allottees. It was further claimed that possession of Karnail Singh in his capacity as allottee has been accepted by the Block

Development and Panchayat Officer, Chamkaur Sahib vide order dated 2.9.1997 (Ex. P1). The defendantappellant contested the suit asserting

that the suit property was Shamlat Deh according to the certified copy of the jamabandi for the year 199192 and it vested in the Gram Panchayat.

The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit but the Additional District Judge accepted the appeal and reversed the findings by placing reliance on

Exs. P5, P1 and also Ex. P6 which is a copy of Khatauni Pamaish for the year 196162. The view of the learned Additional District Judge in this

regard reads as under :

Admittedly, the plaintiff in his plaint claimed the property in dispute to be part of Khasra No. 59(419) which was kept reserve for Gair Mumkin

Dher of proprietors and the allottees of the village. The defendant however did not challenge the factum of the property in dispute, to be part of

Khasra No. 59, as claimed in the plaint. Therefore, the defendant is precluded from contending that the property in dispute is not part of Khasra

No. 59. Even otherwise, no evidence was led on behalf of the defendant to show that the property in dispute was not part of Khasra No. 59 and

rather the plaintiff placed on record certified copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1991 92 (Ex. P5) which indicated Khasra No. 59 to be Gair

Mumkin Dher owned by proprietors and the allottees. Order dated 2.9.1997 passed by Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Chamkaur

Sahib (copy Ex. P1) also indicates that Khasra No. 59 was in possession of Karnail Singh being allottee. From the said copy of the Jamabandi

and the order, it was also apparent that Khasra No. 42 had been kept reserve from Makbuja Harijan Gara Jat. In order to show that plaintiff was

one of the allottees, plaintiff placed on record copy of Khatauni Paimaish for the year 196061 (Ex. P6), Punjabi translation of which has been

placed on record also indicate plaintiff Karnail Singh to be one of the allottees of village Dalla. Once the property in dispute is kept reserve, for the

proprietors and the allottee of the village, in the consolidation, which is indicated from the certified copy of the Jamabandi placed on record, the

Gram Panchayat ceased to have any right, title or interest, in the property in dispute, and the property in dispute forming part of Khasra No. 59

could only be allotted among the proprietors/allottees of the village. Plaintiff Karnail Singh is proved to be allottee of village Dalla in view of the

copy of Khatauni Paimaish (Ex. P6) and the contention of the defendant, regarding illegal possession of the plaintiff or encroachment, has already

been repelled by the Block Development & Panchayat Officer. Consequently, the defendant failed to show that property in dispute, was not part

of Khasra No. 59 or that the property in dispute was the same which was allegedly allotted by the Gram Panchayat, to him.

Mr. V.M. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned lower appellate Court has failed to read the documents Exs. P5,

P1 and P6 correctly because none of these documents shows the possession of the plaintiffrespondent nor do they show that the land in dispute

forms part of Khasra No. 59 which might have been kept reserved for Gair Mumkin Dher belonging to the proprietors and allottees of the village.

Therefore, it is urged that findings are bound to be set aside.

I have perused the document Ex. P1 which is an order dated 2.9.1997 passed by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Chamkaur

Sahib recording the fact that jamabandi for the year 199192 is in favour of plaintiffrespondent Karnail Singh being allottee and he is also in

possession. Jamabandi Ex. P5 records the fact that Khasra No. 59 is Shamilat Deh which is in possession of the owner and its allottee and Ex. P6

has recorded the fact that plaintiff respondent Karnail Singh is one of the allottees. (certified copies of documents has been produced by the

learned counsel). Therefore, on a conjoint reading of three documents Exs. P1, P5 and P6 respectively, it is established that a finding of fact has

been recorded by the lower Appellate Court holding that the plaintiffrespondent is proved to be the allottee of the land in village Dulla and the land

in dispute forms part of Khasra No. 59 which could be allotted only to the proprietors/allottees. It has further been held that the defendantappellant

has failed to prove that the suit land does not form part of Khasra No. 59 and that it forms part of Khasra No. 42 and other Khasra numbers.

Therefore, the suit of the plaintiffrespondent has been rightly decreed by the learned lower Appellate Court and the instant appeal is without any

merit.

For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. In view of the fact that the appeal is dismissed on merits, I do not feel

any necessity of passing any order on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Appeall dismissed.