Ranbir Singh v. Bhupinder Kaur Nd ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-1408-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.09.2025 Ranbir Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Bhupinder Kaur and another
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:
Mr. Abhishek Ba+a, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Mr. Abhishek Ba+a, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant and filed fresh Power of A+orney, which is taken on record.
2.
Plain2ff of the case is before this Court against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Suit for declara2on filed by the plain2ff was dismissed by the trial Court on 25.09.2017 and appeal filed by him was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 30.08.2019, thus affirming the findings of the trial Court.
3.
As per the case of the plain2ff-appellant, he is a tenant in the suit property, which was owned by Saravjit Singh son of Sadhu Singh son of Sarmukh Singh. It was alleged that said owner Saravjit Singh was s2ll alive, but the defendants (respondents herein) by claiming to be legal heirs of the owner and by contending that the owner had died, got muta2on No.152 sanc2oned in their favour. The said muta2on has been upheld by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab vide order dated 08.08.2007. Plain2ff sought declara2on that said order dated 08.08.2007 of the Financial Commissioner was illegal and void.
4.
Defendants contested the suit by pleading that plain2ff had no locus standi to challenge the muta2on, he being only the tenant. It was further pleaded that owner of the land - Saravjit Singh had expired on Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.23 15:10 I agree to specified portions of this document
24.03.1990 in United State of America, regarding which death cer2ficate was also produced. It was contended that muta2on had been rightly sanc2oned.
5.
A@er framing issues and taking evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit and the First Appellate Court affirmed the findings. 6.
Assailing the concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel that original owner - Saravjit Singh is s2ll alive and therefore, muta2on has been wrongly sanc2oned in favour of the defendantsrespondents. 7.
To the specific query raised by this Court that in case, the owner of the land in dispute namely Saravjit Singh son of Sadhu Singh was s2ll alive, why he was not impleaded as a party to this li2ga2on and why he was not produced as a witness by the plain2ff, the learned counsel was at loss of words.
8.
In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find merit in the appeal. In case, the owner - Saravjit Singh was alive as is contended by the appellant, he would have been impleaded as a party to the suit to affirm the claim of the plain2ff-appellant. At least, the plain2ff could have examined said Saravjit Singh in the witness box. 9.
In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to disturb the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below, which are found to be based upon proper apprecia2on of evidence on record.
10.
As such, finding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed.
22.09.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.23 15:10 I agree to specified portions of this document