R.S.A. No. 182 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 182 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.1.2011 Babu Singh ......Appellant Versus Nidhan Singh and another .......Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Babu Singh had filed a suit for possession of land measuring 8 marlas forming plot of khasra No.33//26. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the plot in dispute was jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiff, his brother Sahib Singh, sisters Kaushalaya Devi, Sumitri Devi, Leelo Devi and other co-sharers including Punjab Singh. All the co-sharers had partitioned the land qua their share in a family settlement. Suit land along with some other land measuring 1 kanal 2 marlas was in exclusive possession of the plaintiff by way of the family settlement. Plaintiff had also purchased share of his sisters. The defendants had encroached upon the suit property. Demarcation was done by Girdawar Halqa on 8.12.1999 and it was found that defendants had R.S.A. No. 182 of 2011 (O&M) 2 encroached upon 8 marlas of land out of khasra No.33//26 owned by the plaintiff. Hence, suit for possession was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants, on the other hand, in their written statement averred that Prabhat Singh son of Punjab Singh was a co-sharer in the land bearing khasra No. 33//26 and he had sold 8 marlas of land out of the said khasra number to defendant No.2 vide sale deed dated 16.3.2005. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court :- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit ? OPD. 3. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 15.9.2006, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 22.9.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiff was that he was owner of the suit property measuring 8 marlas and the same had been encroached upon by the defendants. On the other hand, the defendants successfully established that defendants No.2 had purchased the said 8 marlas of land form Prabhat R.S.A. No. 182 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Singh a co-sharer vide sale deed dated 16.3.2005-Ex.D1. As per the revenue record, Prabhat Singh had sold 8/84 share out of khasra No.33//26. Mutation was sanctioned in favour of defendant No.2 on the basis of the sale deed executed by Prabhat Singh in his favour. Plaintiff, on the other hand, had failed to establish his case. Plaintiff had also failed to examine the Local Commissioner, who had given the report qua encroachment by the defendants. Rather the defendants had been successful in establishing that defendant No.2 had become a co-sharer with the plaintiff in khasra No.33//26 on the basis of sale deed executed in his favour. Defendant No.1 is father of defendant No.2. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 27, 2011 Anand