Dhian Singh v. Hari Ram And ANR

-1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision.08.03.2019 Dhian Singh ...Appellant Vs Hari Ram and another

...Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the appellant.

-.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) C.M. No.12771-C of 2017 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 720 days in re-filing of the appeal is condoned.

Application is allowed.

C.M. No.12773-C of 2017 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 3 days in filing of the appeal is condoned.

Application is allowed.

RSA No.4803 of 2017 The appellant-plaintiff has not been successful in claiming declaration to be in cultivating possession of land measuring 32 kanals for the last 30 years as well as for seeking correction of the entry in the revenue record with consequential relief of permanent injunction before the trial Court and in appeal. The claim, aforementioned, was laid on the basis of entry in the revenue record as well as voter and ration card. One Hari Ram and Collector Nawanshahr were arrayed as defendants No.1 and 2.

-2Defendant No.1 proceeded ex parte. Defendant No.2 in the written statement stated that property was put into auction and Hari Ram was given possession.

Plaintiff examined three witnesses and brought on record Ex.P1 to P3 whereas defendant No.2 examined Hussan Lal as DW1 and tendered documents Ex.D1 and D2. State counsel also relied upon jamabandi for the year 2002-03 as Ex.D1 and certified copy of auction as Ex.D2.

Mr. Vijay Lath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that oral testimonies of the witnesses established the long and settled possession of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 did not choose to contest the case and therefore, had not been able to belie the possession. Jamabandi Ex.D1 also reflect the same fact, though reflected ownership in favour of the State but possession in the name of Hari Singh, which was sought to be corrected. There were no auction proceedings as no receipt or any proof of possession was placed on record.

I am afraid aforementioned argument is not sustainable as no khasra girdawari to establish possession has been placed on record. PW2 witness of the plaintiff admitted that the suit property was put to auction in the year 1984 and defendant No.1 was put into possession. The present suit has been filed in 2008 and auction is of the year 1984. Plaintiff miserably failed to prove possession. In such circumstances, no question arises for correction of the entry or for injunction.

In view of such circumstances, I do not find any

-3illegality and perversity in the concurrent finding of fact rendered by the Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE March 08, 2019 Pankaj* Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No