RSA No.1815 of 2005 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1815 of 2005
Decided on : 23-04-2009
Baljeet Singh and others
....Appellants
VERSUS
Virender Chauhan
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Mr. N.D.Achint, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate for the respondent.
MAHESH GROVER, J
This is defendants’ second appeal directed against the judgment
of the learned Trial Court dated 16.2.2001 and that of the First Appellate
Court dated 22.12.2004.
The plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for permanent
injunction against the defendants-appellants seeking to restrain them from
interfering in his peaceful possession. It was pleaded that the Punjab Wakf
Board is the owner of the suit property and the plaintiff-respondent is tenant
on the same since 16.1.1991 at the rent of Rs.175/- per month and that the
appellants were trying to interfere in his possession without any right, title
or interest.
The appellants-defendants contested the suit and pleaded that
the suit was a counter blast to a suit which defendant no.1 had already filed
against one Basant Lal, Kalttar and Jagdish which was pending in the Trial
Court at Kaithal. It is pleaded that all the above three named persons are in
RSA No.1815 of 2005 2
collusion with each other and wanted to dispossess the defendants who are
in possession of the suit property. The ownership of the Punjab Wakf Board
was denied and the tenancy of the plaintiff-respondent on the suit property
was also denied. The allotment letter dated 16.1.1991 on the basis of which
plaintiff-respondent pleaded tenancy was said to be false and bogus. It it
pleaded that the appellants had raised construction on the suit property and
were in possession and that the plaintiff-respondent had no concern with the
same.
Both the parties went to trial on the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as
tenant under the Punjab Wakf Board?OPP.
2. If issue no. 1 is proved, whether the defendants are trying to
dispossess him from the suit land and encroached upon the
gali illegally?OPP.
3. Whether the suit is malafide as alleged in para no.1 of the
written statement?OPP.
4. Relief.
Both the Courts concluded that the plaintiff-respondent was a
tenant on the suit property and that the Punjab Wakf Board was the owner
of the same. It was further held that the plaintiff-respondent was in
possession as a tenant and the defendants had no concern with the same and
therefore, went on to decree the suit of the plaintiff-respondent, which has
resulted in filing of the present regular second appeal.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants
that the cogent evidence has been ignored by the Courts below and the
findings recorded by both the Courts below are accordingly perverse. It was
RSA No.1815 of 2005 3
pleaded that Ex. D1 which is a decree in favour of the appellants has been
totally ignored by both the Courts below and it was pleaded that in this
decree which was against the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff-
respondent, the suit of Kalyan Singh was decreed and therefore, this was
binding and the present suit was barred by the principle of res judicata.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent pleaded
that the findings recorded by both the Courts below cannot be termed to be
erroneous. It is contended that there is sufficient evidence on record to
show that the Punjab Wakf Board was the owner of the property and that by
virtue of the document (allotment letter dated 16.1.1991) the tenancy had
been created in his favour and thereafter, he continued to be in possession.
He also referred to the Local Commissioner report who was appointed
during the course of proceedings who established the identity of the
property and also established the possession of the plaintiff-respondent
while categorically discarding the possession of the appellants.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the impugned judgments.
The plaintiff-respondent has produced both oral and
documentary evidence to show that the property is owned by the Punjab
Wakf Board and that he is the tenant thereon. PW6 Sameen Ahmed from
Punjab Wakf Board appeared and admitted that plot in khasra no 328 is
owned by the Punjab Wakf Board and Ex.P-14 is a notification to that effect
which is sufficient indicator of the property being the Punjab Wakf
property. Revenue record and consequent entries as reflected in Ex.P-36,
38, 39 and 40 also established the property to be Punjab Wakf Board. All
these cogent pieces of evidence could not have been ignored by both the
RSA No.1815 of 2005 4
Courts below. P-17 is the statement of Basant Lal and Tarsem Lal which
provided that they are the Patedars on the land and they have relinquished
the possession over the suit property by Ex.P-18 an affidavit to that effect.
P-19 is the allotment letter in favour of the Punjab Wakf Board. Report of
the Local Commissioner, Ex.P-27 shows that there is boundary of the plot in
dispute and the possession of the plaintiff-respondent was established on the
spot. The appellants could not off-set all this material evidence by
producing any evidence in their favour. The only decree on which reliance
has been placed was not sufficient to establish their possession. Even
otherwise it was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel
for the respondent that the suit which led to the passing of the decree upon
which the appellants has placed reliance was initiated on 20.11.1993
wherein the instant suit was filed on 4.1.1993. The decree was passed on
1.12.1993 barely 10 days thereafter and Rasal Singh who appeared as DW2
did not contest the suit implying thereby that it was a fraudulent decree. In
any eventuality, the plaintiff-respondent who had come to the Court has
produced cogent and material evidence on record to establish his possession
as a tenant under the Punjab Wakf Board. Both the Courts have recorded
concurrent and consistent findings of fact against the appellants which
cannot be termed to be erroneous so as to warrant interference in a regular
second appeal. No substantial question of law has been shown to have
arisen in the present appeal and the same being devoid of any merit is
hereby dismissed.
April 23, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge