Lakhbir Singh And ORS v. Hindu Sabha Society And ORS

CM-2395-C-2025 The applicant/appellant has moved the instant application under Order 51 Rule 3 for impleading the legal representatives on account of death of deceased appellant no.2 namely Smt. Dalip Kaur d/o Sh. Dayal Singh. It is informed that appellant No.2 has unfortunately passed on 03.08.2019, which necessitated moving of the present application for

impleading legal representatives left behind by the deceased as detailed in para 4 of the application.

Learned counsel for the applicant also states before the Court that there is no other legal heir left by the deceased/appellant No.2. Notice in the application to the non-applicant for whom there is no representation continuously and today, Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate has been appeared having been duly served. He states no objection to the impleading of legal representatives of deceased/appellant No.2. Accordingly, the application is allowed and amended memo of parties is taken on record.

RSA-2463-1993 (O&M) The instant Regular Second Appeal came up before this Court assailing the judgment and decree dated 26.07.1993 passed by the Lower Appellate Court, which reversed the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court dated 11.10.1999 primarily agitating that issues No.2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 have been decided against the pleadings made by the parties, which is totally distinct to the original prayer made in the plaint by the plaintiff. 2.

The factual backdrop to the leading of present Regular Second Appeal can be juxtaposed to the effect that the plaintiff/Hindu Sabha Societyrespondent No.1 filed a suit for possession over land measuring 30 feet into 13 feet 9 inches and also for permanent injunctions restraining the defendants/appellants from raising any construction on the said land in dispute alongwith mandatory injunction against the above-said defendants/appellants

to demolish the structure so raised.

3.

It would be worth noticing here in the suit filed against Makhan Singh and Lakhabir Singh, who were arrayed as defendant in the suit wherein Makhan Singh died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were not impleaded as party.

4.

The plaintiff-Hindu Sabha Society is a registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 formed with the aim and object of imparting education to the student community. One, Dina Nath, was the Joint Secretary of the plaintiff/society at that time and being one of the principal officers was authorized to file suit on its behalf. The Hindu Sabha Society/plaintiff is also owner of Hindu Sabha Market Dhab Wasti Ram, Amritsar, which is situated at a site separate from other buildings consisting of large number of shops. Out of those shops, one bearing No.46 was on lease with Dayal Singh/father of defendants No.2-A to 2-E, the legal representatives of deceased Dayal Singh and after the death of Dayal Singh, it is Lakhbir Singh, appellant/defendant No.2-A, who is continuing in possession thereof. 5.

Defendants No.2-A to 2-E in the capacity of legal representatives of deceased Dayal Singh claimed rights of tenancy as successor as well as possession thereof in that character. Another Shop No.47 and 48 of Hindu Sabha Market were on lease with defendant No.1 Makhan Singh s/o Kishan Singh for long years and he is in occupation of the said shops as plaintiffslessee. The land in dispute is in close proximity to shop No.46, 47 and 48 and it is for that reason the defendants are trying to grab the said part of the land against the interest of the plaintiff/Hindu Sabha Society. It was on the night of 24/25.12.1981 allegedly the defendants/appellant took undue advantage of

closure of civil Courts at Amritsar for winter break and started raising construction on the land in dispute deploying masons and labourers, which land is claimed to be in the ownership of plaintiff/Hindu Sabha Society. It is further averred that in the forenoon of 25.12.1981, the plaintiff/society came to know about the said activity, the office bearers of the plaintiff/society visited the spot and requested the defendant/appellant to stop the said constructions and to demolish whatever has been raised by them to which the defendants did not agree. The respondent No.1/plaintiff-society approached the town planner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and submitted a complaint to that effect on 26.12.1981 with a copy to Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, SSP, Amritsar and DSP (City), Amritsar apart from SHO 'C Division', Amritsar, but no action was taken by the above-said authorities as has been asserted in the plaint and neither the construction was stopped by the defendants/appellants.

6.

On notice of the said suit, the defendants no.1 Makhan Singh appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objection that the suit is barred by res judicata as the plaintiff society had earlier also filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 and his brother Dayal Singh, who has since died from restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in the property in question. The defendants Makhan Singh and his brother Dayal Singh had taken an objection to the said plea urging that they are in possession for the last 30 years over the suit property and accordingly, it was dismissed on 28.03.1986 by the Court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Amritsar. It was also submitted on behalf of the defendants that the trial Court returned a finding that Makhan Singh and Dayal Singh are

possession in the suit property for the last more than 20 years against which an appeal was preferred by the respondent no.1/plaintiff-Hindu Sabha Society, which was also dismissed and a Regular Second Appeal was preferred before this High Court, which also stands dismissed as well. 7.

The respondents/plaintiff-society then instituted a suit for possession and mandatory injunction. The defendant No.1 Makhan Singh along with his brother Dayal Singh therein claimed to have become owners over the suit property by adverse possession and as such sought dismissal of the suit being not maintainable as it is barred by res judicata as well as suffer from delay and latches. The defendants have in fact claimed possession over the suit property for the last more than 50 years as owner by way of adverse possession, who also took objection to the authorization of Chaudhary Dina Nath to sign verify and institute the suit on behalf of plaintiff/Hindu Sabha Society. It is also claimed on behalf of the defendants that the defendant No.1 is the owner of land in question and in his own right over half of the land and he never raised any construction upon the land in dispute. 8.

On merits it was admitted that shop No.46 belonging to the respondent no. 1/Hindu Sabha Society was on lease with Sh. Dayal Singh father of defendant No.2-A to 2-R and after the death of Dayal Singh the defendant Lakhbir Singh is in possession of the said shop as tenant under the respondent no. 1/Hindu Sabha Society itself, whereas shops No.46, 47 and 48 were previously under the joint tenancy of Makhan Singh, Defendant No.1 and Dayal Singh and after the partition Dayal Singh was allotted shop No.46 and part of Shop No.47, whereas shop No.48 and remaining part of Shop No.47 went to the share of Makhan Singh. As such it is vehemently stated on

behalf of the defendants/appellants that Lakhbir Singh, defendant is in possession over the disputed property for more than 40 years and as such has become owner by adverse possession, who has legal right to raise construction over the suit property.

On the basis of above-said pleadings following issues were framed:-