Sukh Ram vs Rattan Lal

Surjit Singh, J.—This regular second appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th March, 2006 of learned Additional District Judge, whereby dismissing the appeal of the appellant, judgment and decree dated 17.10.2001 of learned trial Court decreeing the suit of the respondent has been upheld.

Respondent instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from interfering in his land measuring 6 bighas or causing any interference in the structure standing on land bearing khasra No. 1434/1389/488/1, measuring 6 bighas situated at village Kalol Tehsil & Distt. Bilaspur. Suit was contested by the appellant/defendant. He took the plea that the land had been obtained in exchange of a portion of joint land of the parties, who are related to each other as real brothers and, therefore, even if the entries in revenue papers reflected the respondent/plaintiff as exclusive owner in possession, the fact of the matter was that the property was joint. Various issues based on the pleadings of the parties were framed. Ultimately, the suit was decreed with the finding that the suit land belonged to the respondent-plaintiff.

Appellant/defendant filed appeal in the court of learned Addl. District Judge, who dismissed the same vide impugned judgment and decree.

The present appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law.

1) Whether the judgment of the courts below can be sustained when it does not consider the evidence led by the defendant qua his claim of ownership and possession?

2) Whether the judgment of both the courts below is vitiated by misreading and misconstruing of oral and documentary evidence?

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.

Two courts below have returned concurrent finding that the suit land belongs to the plaintiff/respondent exclusively. Respondent/plaintiff proved copy of Misl Hakiat EX.PA in which he is shown to be exclusive owner in possession of the suit land. As per this Misl Hakiat, he has his Abadi over a portion of the suit land. Also an admission of the appellant/defendant has been proved by the respondent/plaintiff in the form of compromise deed. The same is EX.PW13/A.As per this writing, appellant has undertaken that he would not interfere with the possession of the respondent/plaintiff over the property situated in village Kalol. Appellant/defendant admitted in the cross examination that the document pertains to the suit land.

Appellant/defendant did not produce any documentary evidence, in support of his plea that the suit land had been obtained in exchange for some joint land of the parties. Had the suit land been taken in exchange from the government for some land, there would have been some order of mutation and also entries in the revenue papers reflecting the transaction of exchange, besides deed of exchange.

In view of the above said position both the substantial questions of law, on which the appeal was admitted, are answered against the appellant/defendant. Consequently the appeal is dismissed.