RSA No.5497 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.5497 of 2003 Date of Decision: 29.06.2010 Santokh Singh and another .……Appellants Versus Sukhdev Singh and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. K. S. Boparai, Advocate for the respondents. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) By this common judgment, I am disposing of two appeals i.e RSA No.5497 of 2003 titled as 'Santokh Singh and Gurmeet Kaur versus Sukhdev Singh and two others' and RSA No.5753 of 2003 titled as 'Santokh Singh versus Sukhdev Singh and two others'. Both these appeals have arisen out of two suits. One suit was filed by Sukhdev Singh and Sukhvinder Singh respondent Nos.1 and 2 impleading Jaswinder Singh respondent No.3 as proforma defendant No.3 and impleading the appellants Santokh Singh and Gurmeet Kaur as defendant Nos.1 and 2 whereas other suit was filed by Santokh Singh against respondents-Sukhdev Singh and his sons Sukhvinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in their suit pleaded that they along with respondent No.3 Jaswinder Singh are owners in RSA No.5497 of 2003 -2- possession of the suit land measuring 59 Bighas 2 biswas including a house constructed therein and defendant Nos.1 and 2 i.e Santokh Singh and Gurmeet Kaur have no right, title or interest therein, but they threatened to interfere in their possession. Accordingly, respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought permanent injunction, restraining the appellants herein from dispossessing the respondents from the suit property and from interfering in their possession thereof. Appellants-defendant Nos.1 and 2 inter alia pleaded that Gurmeet Kaur-appellant No.2 and Jeet Kaur since deceased wife of Sukhdev Singh-respondent No.1 were sisters. The appellants were settled in Gwalior, but at the instance of Jeet Kaur and respondent No.3, the appellants shifted to Punjab in the year 1982 by selling their property in Gwalior. The appellants settled in the year 1982 and constructed house thereof. The appellants gave cash amount to the respondents, who constructed Kothi No.660/10, Gali No.12, Dashmesh Nagar, Ludhiana in the year 1982-83 with the said amount. The appellants thus claimed to be owners in possession of the suit property. The appellants also claimed mutual settlement with respondents and also oral exchange and adverse possession. Santokh Singh subsequently filed suit seeking declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit property, who also sought permanent injunction, broadly on the allegations mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Respondents herein, who were defendants in the said suit resisted the claim of Santokh Singh-appellant on the grounds as pleaded by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in their first suit. Both the suits were decided by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), RSA No.5497 of 2003 -3- Rajpura vide common judgment dated 28.02.2002. Suit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 was decreed whereas suit filed by appellant- Santokh Singh was dismissed. Two first appeals were preferred against the judgments and decrees of the trial Court. Learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide common judgment dated 05.09.2003 dismissed both the appeals. Feeling aggrieved, the instant two second appeals have been preferred. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have come to concurrent finding that appellants are neither owners nor in possession of the suit property and on the other hand, respondents are owners in possession thereof. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in second appeal. The entire revenue record pertaining to the suit land revealed that respondents were recorded to be owners in possession of the suit land. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that vide order dated 16.11.1994 i.e a few days before filing of the suit by respondent Nos.1 and 2, khasra girdawari was ordered to be corrected in favour of appellants and, therefore, on the basis of revenue record which stood corrected in favour of the appellants, it could not be concluded that the respondents were in possession of the suit property. The contention cannot be accepted. Correction of khasra Girdawari ordered by Revenue Officer in November, 1994 would not wipe out the entire previous revenue record. The RSA No.5497 of 2003 -4- appellants claimed to have settled in the suit property in the year 1982-83, but till November, 1994 there was no entry in the revenue record in favour of the appellants. Consequently, merely on the basis of correction of khasra girdawari ordered by revenue officer, the appellants cannot be said to be in possession of the suit property. In addition to the aforesaid, order of correction of khasra girdawari which was upheld in appeal by Collector was set aside by the Commissioner. However, Financial Commissioner set aside the order of the Commissioner with the observation that the respondents shall be at liberty to report the judgment/decree of the Civil Court to the Revenue Officer, who will proceed in accordance with Section 36 (3) of the Punjab Revenue Act, 1887. Since respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed suit immediately after order of correction of khasra girdawari was passed by Assistant Collector, the Financial Commissioner though had fit to leave the matter to the Civil Court and consequently the civil Court decided the question of possession on the basis of evidence led by the parties. In these circumstances, the appellants cannot derive any capital out of the order of correction of khasra girdawari passed by the Revenue Officer. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that even witness of the respondents admitted that appellants are residing in Village Nanhera where the suit property is situated. However, merely on this basis it cannot be concluded that the appellants are in possession of the suit property. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that respondent No.1 is admittedly practicing as doctor at Ludhiana and is RSA No.5497 of 2003 -5- residing there and the respondents are not listed as voter in village Nanhera. However, merely on this basis as well it cannot be said that respondents could not be in possession of the suit property. In addition to the aforesaid, it has to be noticed that the appellants have taken a very strange stand in the written statement, filed in the suit, instituted by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The appellants claimed to have paid some cash amount to the respondents. However, appellants did not even plead that the said cash amount was paid as sale price of the suit property. Moreover, admittedly there is no written document much less registered sale deed for sale of the suit property by the respondents to the appellants . In the absence of registered sale deed, the appellants could not have become owners of the suit property. In addition thereto, the appellants have also pleaded oral settlement with the respondents and under the oral settlement, the appellants claimed to have become owners in possession of the suit property. The appellants also pleaded that oral exchange with respondents and also pleaded adverse possession. All these pleas are mutually destructive and are sufficient to conclude that the appellants are neither owners nor in possession of the suit property. The appellants are not aware of their own version. They have taken self-contradictory stand in the written statement. Learned counsel for the appellants even on pointed inquiry is unable to explain as to how the appellants could become owners of the suit property in the absence of any registered deed. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find that there is RSA No.5497 of 2003 -6- no infirmity much less illegality or perversity in the concurrent finding by the Courts below. Consequently, no interference is warranted by this court in second appeals. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in these second appeals. The appeals are completely devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 29.06.2010. A. Kaundal