RSA No. 2237 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 2237 of 2008
Decided on : 30-01-2009
Shri Nath Sood and others
....Appellants
VERSUS
Baldev Kumar
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Advocate for the appellants.
MAHESH GROVER, J
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Trial
Court dated 22.5.2007 and the First Appellate Court dated 5.10.2007.
A suit in the representative capacity was filed by the appellants
alleging that the suit land had been occupied by the respondent who has
started raising construction thereon. It was pleaded that land belongs to
Sood community and the respondent had no claim over it. Therefore, the
construction which was sought to be raised forcibly ought to be restrained.
On notice, the respondent apart from taking other objections regarding the
maintainability of the suit also pleaded that mandatory provisions of Order 1
Rule 8 CPC have not been complied with and further pleaded that he is
owner in possession of the suit land and the appellants have no concern with
that. The respondent pleaded that he had purchased the suit land measuring
7 marlas 2 sarsahis from Joginder Singh and Mukhtiar Singh sons of Santa
Singh vide registered sale deed dated 4.1.1990 for a sale consideration of
Rs.8000/- and immediately after the purchase he has started constructing his
RSA No. 2237 of 2008 2
house. It was pleaded that Joginder Singh and Mukhtiar Singh have
purchased the land in question vide two sale deeds dated 12.6.1970
executed by Satpal, Dharampal and another sale deed dated 4.1.1983
executed by Raj Kumar and Surinder Kumar regarding 9 marlas of the suit
land and that the said vendors belonged to the sood community and they
were co-sharers in the Shamlat Sudan of village Sheikhupur. Both the
parties went to trial on the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the land
as prayed for ? OPP.
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?
OPD.
3. Whether the suit has been filed without following mandatory
provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. OPD.
4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary
parties? OPD.
5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present
suit? OPD.
6. Whether the suit is time-barred?OPD.
7. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the
purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.
8. Relief.
The Trial Court concluded that the plaintiffs-appellants have
failed to establish their ownership and possession of the suit property and
therefore, dismissed the suit. Further it held that provisions of Order 1 Rule
8 CPC have been complied with.
In appeal, findings of the Trial Court were affirmed except on
RSA No. 2237 of 2008 3
issue nos.2 and 3 where it was held that the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8
CPC have not been complied with.
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that findings of
the First Appellate Court on issues no. 2 and 3 are erroneous and that
provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC have been complied with. He however,
could not say anything regarding other findings of facts.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and perusing
the impugned judgments, I am of the considered opinion that the present
appeal does not warrant any interference. The respondent had proved that
he had purchased the suit land on the basis of sale deeds and has established
possession thereon. The sale in the first instance had taken place in the year
1970 by the members of the Sood community which was never assailed by
the plaintiffs-appellants. At this stage, when the respondent has been put in
physical possession of the suit land and has constructed his house thereon,
the appellants cannot plead that they had any title or interest over the suit
land. In so far as finding regarding the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC is
concerned, it is immaterial in view of the conclusive findings of fact
recorded on the question of respondent being in possession on the basis of
sale deeds. 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.
January 30, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge