Prabhdeep Singh v. Manpreet Singh And ORS

through the statement of Kulwant Singh draftsman that it is the plaintiff who is in possession of the suit property. Defendant has failed to rebut the identity of suit property by producing his own site plan. More over the plaintiff in order to prove his possession further has proved the demarcation report EXP5 and that demarcation report has been proved by Kanungo and he being a public servant has prepared the said report in discharge of his public duty, therefore this document is a public document and has been brought from proper custody i.e. revenue department and is perse admissible document.

More over the plaintiff has placed on record the electricity bills though have not been exhibitted or that have been marked documents but there is no bar for the court to take judicial notice of those independent documents which are in favour of the plaintiff and prove possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. DW2 Avtar Singh in his cross examination has stated that Manpreet Singh plaintiff is resident of village Bagrian Since 1980 and his ration card is at the same address and his vote has also been from the same village. More over the land which has Seen purchased by defendant through sale deed EXD1 is comprised in Khasra No.

measuring (0-6) and it has got different sides as are closed in the sale deed itself and those sides are different from the sides as those are mentioned in sale deed EXP1. Therefore the land purchased by defendant no. 2 has got nothing to do with the land that has been purchased by defendant No.2. It is very rightly contended by Counsel for plaintiff that once the property has been sold by Nishan Singh and Jagir Singh in favour of Mohinder Singh father of the plaintiff by virtue of sale deed dated 23.11.1995 then there was no reason for Dalwinder Singh to sell the said land in favour of defendant No.2. The defendant no. 2 cannot be said to have acquired title in respect of the suit land which is actually owned by plaintiff.

The plaintiff being owner f the suit property entitled to protect his property which is mentioned in boundaries as fully explained in sale deed EXP1. Therefore there is no reason that as to why plaintiff should not be held entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for by him and is covered by issue no. 1. Accordingly issue no. 1 has been proved by the plaintiff successfully and the same is hereby decided in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant No.