High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Shakuntla Devi & Anr v. Baro & Ors - RSA-3296-2006  RD-P&H 5358 (8 August 2006)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.
Date of decision : 28.8.2006.
Shakuntla Devi and another ... Appellants.
Baro and others ... Respondents.
Coram Hon'ble Ms. Justice Kiran Anand Lall.
Present: Ms.Monika Goyal,Advocate,for the appellants.
Kiran Anand Lall, J.
The respondents earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking restraint of the appellants from interfering in their possession over the suit property, claiming that they were owners in possession thereof.
During the pendency of the suit, the appellants dispossessed them, inspite of the stay order, granted by the court, in their favour. As such, they amended the plaint and claimed the relief of possession.
The appellants resisted the suit, by pleading that the suit property was, infact, owned and possessed by them. According to them, it was purchased by Hazara Singh, father-in-law of appellant no.1 and father of appellant no.2, from its previous owner, Mehar Chand @ Mehru who was father of the respondents vide a sale-deed dated 12.6.1954. After the death of Hazara Singh, it was inherited by his sons, and later on, in a family settlement, it fell to the share of Avtar Singh (husband of appellant no.1).
However, since no mutation was got sanctioned on the basis of sale-deed dated 12.6.1954, the respondents got the property mutated in their names as legal heirs of its original owner, Mehar Chand @ Mehru. Plea of adverse *****
possession was also taken up.
After recording evidence of the parties, the trial court held that the alleged sale-deed dated 12.6.1954 did not convey any title (of ownership) to the appellants as it was an unregistered document and the property was worth more than Rs.100/-. The alternative plea of adverse possession was also found, without any merit. The suit of respondents for possession of the property, as owners, was, therefore, decreed. The first appellate court upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court. The appellants are, therefore, now in regular second appeal, before this court.
It is admitted case of the parties that Mehar Chand @ Mehru, who was the predecessor -in-interest of the respondents, was the previous owner of the suit property. The case of respondents (plaintiffs) was that they had inherited it from him. In the jamabandi for the year 1992-93, copy Ex.PA, and also in the khasra girdawari, copy Ex.DB, it is the respondents who were recorded in its possession as co-sharers. The case of appellants did not find support from any revenue document. They, however, took forcible possession of the suit property, from the respondents, during the pendency of the suit. On the basis of evidence appearing on record, the trial court found that the suit property is owned by the respondents who had inherited it from its previous owner, Mehar Chand @ Mehru, and further that the appellants had taken its forcible possession from them, during the pendency of the suit. The trial court further found that the appellants had also failed to prove their ownership over the property, by way of adverse possession. Regarding the sale-deed dated 12.6.1954, relied upon by them, the trial court found that as it was an unregistered document pertaining to immoveable property worth more than Rs.100/- it could not confer any title *****
of ownership on the appellants. The first appellate court also affirmed all these findings.
No substantial question of law, requiring decision at the hands of this court, has been pointed out by the learned cousel.
Since this court cannot go into the correctness of the above referred to findings of fact recorded by the two courts in favour of the respondents, the appeal shall, resultantly, stand dismissed, in limine.
28.8.2006. (Kiran Anand Lall)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.