High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Benaras Kaur vs The Deputy Secretary on 10 March, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Benaras Kaur vs The Deputy Secretary on 10 March, 2009
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                   CHANDIGARH


                       Letters Patent Appeal No. 157 of 2007

                       Date of Decision: 10.03.2009


     Benaras Kaur
                                                          ... Appellant

                                Versus


     The Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Department of
     Rehabilitation, New Delhi and others.

                                                       ... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA


Present:   Ms. Jai Shree Thakur, Advocate,
           for the appellant.


                                ****

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgement dated

24.07.86 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.

3349 of 1981, filed by the petitioner. The said Writ Petition was

decided alongwith RFA No. 1078 of 1980 and Cross Objection No.

137-CI of 1980 arising of a suit, wherein, the present appellant was

impleaded as one of the defendant.

One Sarup Singh, brother of the present petitioner, filed a

suit before learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Amritsar, claiming share in the
rental income in property No. 53/1, Court Road, Amritsar. It was

alleged that his father Saran Singh, was head of joint family. After

partition of Country, the family shifted to India. The plaintiff Sarup

Singh, executed a relinquishment deed agreeing to give up all rights in

the family property including right to succession to the estate of his

father except 1/7th share in the verified claim in immovable property for

which application for purchase had been filed before the Additional

Settlement Commissioner. The Additional Settlement Commissioner,

vide order dated 26.07.1962 accepted the claim of the plaintiff to the

extent of 1/8th share in the verified claim. Instead of using such verified

claim, Saran Singh, father of plaintiff purchased evacuee property No.

53/1, Court Road, Amritsar. The plaintiff thus claims to be co-sharer in

the said house by adjusting the verified claim. The defendants

including the present appellant constructed nine shops on the property

in dispute. Thus the plaintiff claims interest in the rental income of the

property purchased by his father.

The appellant raised a plea of ownership by adverse

possession in the written statement filed in the Civil Suit and that the

suit has been filed 12 years after the death of Saran Singh. It was also

pleaded that plaintiff Sarup Singh has executed release deed, thus, he

was debarred from filing the suit. It was also pleaded that Saran Singh

had purchased property in public auction and that the plaintiff has no

right in the property. The said suit was decreed by the learned trial

Court on 27.05.1980. The defendant-appellant filed Regular First

Appeal No. 1078 of 1980, directed against the said judgement and
decree.

The appellant herein filed Writ Petition No. 3349 of 1981

before this Court, challenging adjustment of Rs. 3102.17/- towards the

price of the property and the sale certificate. The petitioner claimed that

sale certificate be amended, so as to show that the petitioner alone is

the owner of property No. 53/1, Court Road, Amritsar.

Both the writ petition and the Regular First Appeal filed by

the defendant-appellant herein was dismissed, vide the order impugned

in the present appeal.

Admittedly, the appellant has not filed any appeal, arising

out of the civil suit, in which, the appellant was impleaded as

defendant. The civil suit filed earlier in point of time was decided on

merits, holding Sarup Singh-plaintiff, entitled to 1/7th share in the

property. Therefore, the present appeal, arising out of the writ petition

is not maintainable as no finding contrary to the findings by the learned

single Judge in civil suit can be recorded. Interference in the present

appeal will lead to contrary judgement in respect of the same issue,

which is not permissible.

Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed in limine.




                                                   (HEMANT GUPTA)
10.03.2009                                             JUDGE
Amodh




                                                      (J.S. KHEHAR)
                                                          JUDGE