Sampuran Singh vs Surjit Singh

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—This is defendant''s second appeal, challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession of land measuring 2 kanals 8 marlas has been decreed. As per the averments made in the suit, land bearing khasra No. 221//18/1(7-2) Khewat No. 393, Khatoni No. 975 situated in Village Bhaloor, Tehsil Baghapurana, District Moga was owned by the Central Government and was in exclusive possession of the plaintiff-respondent. The Central Government sold the said land to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs. 13,313/- vide conveyance deed dated 27.3.2009. However, after execution of the said conveyance deed, the appellant started raising dispute with the plaintiff-respondent on the ground that the sale deed should have been got registered jointly with him and took forcible possession of the suit land measuring 2 Kanals 8 Marlas out of khasra No. 221//18/1(7-2). It was further pleaded that the defendant/appellant had got no concern with the said land of the plaintiff/respondent measuring 2 kanal 8 marla. Thus, suit was filed for possession of the aforesaid land and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from lifting earth or changing nature of the suit land except in due course of law.

The suit was contested by the appellant and written statement was filed raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was pleaded that the plaintiff as well as the defendant are real brothers and land bearing khasra No. 221//18/1(7-2) was jointly possessed by them since long. However, the plaintiff got auctioned the said land in his favour in connivance with the revenue officials at the back of the defendant. The defendant was also eligible to participate in the alleged auction being in settled possession of the land in question since long and since the land was auctioned in favour of the plaintiff without following proper procedure and the appellant was in lawful cultivating possession of the same, therefore, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession as prayed for? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for? OPP

Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the suit? OPD

Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and baseless? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has concealed and withheld the true facts from this court? OPD

Relief

While decreeing the suit, the trial Court found that the plaintiff-respondent had purchased the land vide conveyance deed dated 28.7.2009 in accordance with law and even his possession over the suit land was proved.

On the other hand, appellant claimed that the suit land was jointly owned and possessed by him along with the plaintiff-respondent. However, there is nothing on record to show the possession of the appellant on the suit land except an order dated 28.7.2009 of Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Baghapurana which shows that out of the land measuring 7 kanals 2 marlas comprised in khasra No. 221//18/1, khasra girdawari qua land measuring 2 kanals 8 marlas was corrected in the name of appellant and the remaining land was shown in the name of the plaintiff-respondent.

It is not in dispute that the aforesaid correction of khasra girdawari was made by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade after sale of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and thus, the same will not affect the rights of the plaintiff-respondent. Appeal filed by the appellant against the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court was also dismissed observing as under:-

It is not disputed that the plaintiff and the defendant are real brothers. It is also not disputed that previously the suit land was owned by Central Government. From the perusal of khasra girdawari Ex. P7 coupled with entry of rapat roznamcha dated 16.10.1997 Ex. P9 it is evident that the respondent came into exclusive possession of khasra no. 221//18/1(7-2) in the year 1997. From the perusal of Ex. P2 it is evident that even in jamabandi for the year 2003-04 the respondent was recorded to be in exclusive possession of aforesaid land measuring 7 kanals 2 marlas. Even in khasra girdawari Ex. P10 from year 2004 to Harhi 2007 the respondent was recorded to be in exclusive possession of aforesaid land. The execution of conveyance deed Ex. P1 which is a registered document is proved on the record by one of its attesting witness namely Pala Singh who appeared in the witness box as PW1. Even the plaintiff himself while appearing in the witness box proved the execution and registration of conveyance deed Ex. P1 which was executed for valuable consideration of Rs. 13,313/-. The validity of the said conveyance deed has not been challenged by the appellant in the present suit. There is also nothing on the record to prove that the validity of the said conveyance deed has been challenged by the appellant before any revenue authority or district administration. So, in this case, the execution of conveyance deed Ex. P1 has been fully proved. From the perusal of the same it is evident that the same was executed on 29.1.2009 and was registered on 27.3.2009. So, it is fully proved that the respondent has become lawful owner of the land bearing khasra no. 221//18/1(7-2) on the basis of aforesaid conveyance deed Ex. P1. The appellant while appearing in the witness box admitted that they are seven brothers who are residing separately for the last 22 years and that they are also cultivating their land separately. From the perusal of Ex. P6 it appears that one application was moved by the appellant regarding correction of khasra girdawari of the suit land in his favour, after the execution and registration of conveyance deed Ex. P1. As per Ex. P6 the revenue authorities directed that correction of khasra girdawari relating to suit land measuring 2k-8m out of khasra no. 221//18/1(7-2) be made in favour of the appellant w.e.f. Harhi 2009. So, it is fully proved that the defendant took possession of the suit land measuring 2k-8m only after the execution of the conveyance deed Ex. P1. Thus, it is established that the appellant took illegal possession of the suit land before the filing of present suit, which was filed on 19.11.2009. It is fully proved on the record that the suit land measuring 2k-8m is owned by the respondent. Thus, trial court rightly held that the respondent is entitled to recover the possession of the suit land from the appellant. The suit filed by the respondent for recovery of possession is maintainable, he being its true owner. There is nothing on the record to prove that the suit filed by the plaintiff is false, frivolous or baseless. Also there is nothing on the record to prove that the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court. The trial court also rightly restrained the appellant from digging the earth from the land in question. Accordingly, the findings of the trial court regarding all the issues are hereby affirmed.

Still not satisfied, the appellant has filed the instant appeal, challenging the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and submitted that following substantial questions of law arise for consideration of this Court:-

i) Whether the plaintiff has right to take the forcible possession from the defendant/appellant? ii) Whether orders passed by courts below are sustainable in eyes of law?

iii) Whether the owners can dispossess the tenant forcibly/legally or not? iv) Whether grave injustice has been done or not?

v) Costs of the appeal be awarded in favour of the appellant/plaintiff.

However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any evidence on record to challenge the concurrent findings of the Courts below, which have been recorded on appreciation of evidence that it was plaintiff who was in exclusive possession of the suit land before its auction in his favour and the land was sold to him in accordance with law.

Thus, this Court finds no merit in this appeal.

No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed.