RSA No. 3681 of 2009(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 3681 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:September 13, 2010 Pardeep Singh and others ---Appellants versus Kartar Singh and others ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.S.K.Rattan, Advocate, for the appellants *** GURDEV SINGH, J. This is the second appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants against the judgment and decree dated 8.5.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which she dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 17.2.2005 passed by Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Dasuya, decreeing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff, Kartar Singh, for possession of the land measuring 9 marlas situated in village Depur, Had Bast No. 588 Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur and dismissed the counter claim of the defendants for RSA No. 3681 of 2009(O&M) -2- declaration to the effect that entry in Column No. 5 of the jamabandi for the year 1996-97 and the revenue documents of the previous years in the name of the plaintiff is wrong, illegal and void and be corrected in their names. The plaintiff filed suit for possession of the land in dispute on the basis of his previous possession. According to him, he was coming in possession of this land and the forcible possession thereof was taken from him by the defendants one month before the filing of the suit. The suit of the plaintiff was contested by the defendants on the ground that Charan Dass was coming in possession of this land from the last more that 20 years and raised construction of three shops, one room, one cattle shed, one bath room and one khurli in the year 1986. That construction was raised in Khasra Nos. 285 and 286 and the plaintiff did not raise any objection at that time. Charan Dass died in the month of April, 1999 and since then all his legal heirs are coming in possession of this property as owners. The plaintiff has no concern with that property. He was never in possession thereof at any stage. Wrong entry has been made in his name in Column No. 5 of Jamabandi for the year 1996-97 and the revenue documents of the previous years. The following issues were framed by the trial court:- 1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of suit land as prayed for ?OPP 2.Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 3.Whether no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4.Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present RSA No. 3681 of 2009(O&M) -3- form? OPD 5.Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of village Depur as necessary party?OPD 6.Whether the suit is time barred?OPD 7.Relief. On the basis of the evidence produced by the parties and after hearing arguments all the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff and resultantly, his suit was decree and the counter claim of the defendants was dismissed. The appeal filed against that judgment and decree of the trial court was dismissed, as aforesaid. It has been submitted by the counsel for the defendants that admittedly, the land in dispute was owned by the Gram Panchayat and as such it was necessary party and question of possession could not have been decided in its absence. Therefore, the following substantial question of law arises in the present appeal:- “Whether the suit of the plaintiff could have been decreed in the absence of the Gram Panchayat.” He has also tried to contend that there was no blacksmith in that village and Charan Dass, father of the defendants, was brought to this village by the Gram Panchayat and at that time the land in dispute was given to him for the purpose of residence and after his death the defendants are coming in possession thereof. The wrong finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Trial court, which is liable to be corrected in this appeal. From the second submission made by the counsel for the defendants, no substantial question of law arises. No such plea was taken by the defendants in the written statement. Even the above said question of RSA No. 3681 of 2009(O&M) -4- law, so stated to be substantial question of law, is in fact not a substantial question of law. The plaintiff filed suit on the basis of his previous possession. The presence of the Gram Panchayat before the court was not necessary for deciding the controversy between the parties completely and effectively. As such the Gram Panchayat was not the necessary party. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE September 13, 2010 PARAMJIT