RSA No. 383 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 383 of 2010 Date of decision: 21.02.2011 Abdul Rashid and another ......Appellants Versus Manjit Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Anil Shukla,Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Naveen Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4 **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that the suit property was owned by the plaintiffs and proforma defendant-Karam Singh. Initially, Sucha Singh was owner of the suit land. Plaintiff-Manjit Singh and Karam Singh had purchased 8 kanals of land from Sucha Singh vide sale deed dated 24.1.1997. Manjit Singh and Karam Singh again purchased another piece of 8 kanals of land vide sale deed dated 26.3.1997. Karam Singh sold 4 kanals of land to plaintiff- Banke Bihari vide sale deed dated 8.4.1997. Plaintiff-Tarsem Kapoor purchased a part of land in dispute from Sucha Singh through his RSA No. 383 of 2010 2 attorney Sukhdev Singh vide sale deed dated 27.7.1999. About seven years back, defendants had constructed temporary sarkanda jhugies. In the year 1997, defendants tried to encroach upon the land of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs collected the village Panchayat and defendants were asked not to encroach upon the land belonging to the plaintiffs. A false criminal case was got registered by the defendants against the plaintiffs but the plaintiffs were acquitted in the said case. The Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village and Common Land (Regulation) Act,1961 seeking eviction of the defendants. The Collector allowed the said petition vide order dated 8.5.2000. The defendants were in possession of the suit property since the year 1997 but they had refused to vacate the same despite request. Defendants No. 1, 3, 4,13 and 17 in their written statement, averred that about 100 jhugies/huts were existing on the suit land for the last more than 30 years. Defendants were paying ` 10/- per month to Sucha Singh as rent of the land. Thereafter, Sucha Singh tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. Sucha Singh was the owner of the suit property. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether plaintiffs are entitled to relief of possession by way of demolition of sarkanda huts?OPP 2.Whether plaintiffs are entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed?OPP 3.Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4.Whether suit is not properly valued for the purposes of RSA No. 383 of 2010 3 Court fee and jurisdiction?OPD 4.Whether suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of parties?OPD 5.Relief” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and directed the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 7.4.2004. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants No.4, 13 and 17 filed the appeal and the same was dismissed by the District Judge, Rupnagar vide judgment and decree dated 7.10.2008. Hence, the present appeal by defendants No. 4 and 17. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiffs was that they were owners of the suit land along with the proforma defendant as they had purchased the same from Sucha Singh. Defendants have also admitted in their written statement that Sucha Singh was owner of the suit land. Plaintiffs proved on record the sale deed executed by Sucha Singh in their favour. Plaintiffs also proved the revenue record to establish their ownership qua the suit land. Hence,the plaintiffs were owner of the suit land along with proforma defendant. The case of the defendants, on the other hand, was that they were inducted as tenants by Sucha Singh at a monthly rent of ` 10/-. However, the defendants failed to establish the said plea. In these circumstances, the defendants were liable to hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs who were the owner of the suit land. RSA No. 383 of 2010 4 No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( SABINA ) JUDGE February 21, 2011 arya