High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
INDERJIT SINGH v. IQBAL SINGH - RSA-1310-2005  RD-P&H 124 (12 January 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No.1310 of 2005
DATE OF DECISION:19-1-2006
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR,
Present:- Mr.P.L. Singla,Advocate
for the appellant.
This is defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(for brevity 'the Code'), challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff-respondent is in exclusive possession of the suit land and the defendant-appellant has failed to prove that he is in possession of half portion of the land nor it could prove any details as to which portion is in his possession. Neither partition proceedings nor any demarcation has been got conducted at the spot till date, by the defendant-appellant. The view of the learned Lower Appellate Court affirming the opinion expressed by the learned Trial Court is discernible from R.S.A. No.1310 of 2005 2
para 18 of its judgment and the same reads as under :- "18. The case of the
plaintiff/respondent is that he has purchased the suit property in the year 1964. Regarding this, he has deposited the sale consideration in the Treasury. This fact stands proved from the challan Form 32-A which is Ex PW4/3. Vide this challan form, Iqbal Singh, the present plaintiff, has deposited the sale consideration in the year 1964 itself. Since then, as per the entire revenue record on the file, the plaintiff is in possession of the entire suit land.
Even the perusal of the Challan From Ex DW4/3 shows that this amount pertains to the entire suit land measuring 4 kanals-6 marlas. On the other hand, the appellant/defendant has failed to bring on the record any document of title in his favour. As discussed above in the entire revenue record, the plaintiff is recorded in continuous possession of the suit land since 1964 but abruptly there is a change in the khasra girdwari from khariff 1997 but it has no where been mentioned that in which capacity, the defendant/appellant has come in possession of ½ share of the suit land. Except the order mark A, no document has come on the file to prove the established possession of the defendant/appellant in ½ share of the suit land. Even in the corrected khasra girdwari, it has been found to be in possession of the defendant/appellant. Moreover, the defendant/appellant has failed to show that in which manner and in which capacity, he claims to have come into possession of the suit land. As such, the defendant/appellant has got no right to cause interference in the long established possession of R.S.A. No.1310 of 2005 3
the plaintiff/respondent over the suit land. So, the finding of the ld. Trial Court upon issue no.1 and 2 is affirmed." There is no room to interference in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The discretionary relief has been rightly granted to the plaintiff-respondent after finding him in possession. No fault can be found in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code as no question of law would arise. The appeal does not deserve to be admitted and, therefore, the same is dismissed.
January 19,2006 (M.M. KUMAR)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.