RSA No.4585 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4585 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22 .11.2011 Nachhattar Singh ...Appellant Vs. Chand Singh & Ors. ....Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant. --- A.N.Jindal, J. Trial court had partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents (herein referred as the defendants) from interfering in his possession illegally and forcibly over the suit land except khasra No.459//15/2 (4-5) and 459//16/1 (1-5) and it was further ordered that the defendants would be at liberty to use their own land bearing khasra Nos.459//15/2 (4-5) and 458//16/1 (1-5), at their own wish. The appellate court vide judgment dated 20.9.2011, dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction RSA No.4585 of 2011 2 restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession and also dispossessing him illegally and forcibly from the land measuring 5 kanal 10 marla comprised in Rect. No.459 Killa No.15/2 (4-5), 16/1 (1-5) on the basis of their ownership. The defendants while contesting the cause, raised some preliminary objections, inter alia, that the plaintiff has no concern with the suit land; defendants Nos. 4 and 5 are the owners in possession and other defendants are assisting them in cultivating the said land. It was also averred that plaintiff has admitted the ownership and possession of defendants No.4 and 5 over the suit land in Suit No.41 dated 16.7.2002 by producing the sale deed dated 1.3.2001 vide which Gurcharan Kaur plaintiff of that suit had alienated her share in the suit land. Ad-interim injunction application filed by plaintiff Gurcharan Kaur and Labh Kaur in that suit was dismissed by the court on 12.8.2002 (Ex.P.4) and now the plaintiff is estopped from pleading that defendants No.4 and 5 are not owners of the suit land. Defendants further submitted that previous owner of the suit land was Kartar Singh son of Ganga Singh to whom this land Khasra No.15/2 (4-5) and 16/1 (1-5) was allotted by Additional Settlement Officer on 24.7.1963. Mutation No.6365-A on the basis of said order was also sanctioned in favour of Kartar Singh on 13.2.1964. The mutation was acted upon in the revenue record. But on account of the non-segregation of the land allotted to Kartar Singh from the full khasra number bearing No.5361 relating to the inheritance of Ganda Singh showing him as owner of the said land was wrongly sanctioned in favour of Bachan Kaur etc.. The said entries in the revenue record RSA No.4585 of 2011 3 being forged and fabricated have no effect upon the rights of the defendants. After defendants No.4 and 5 had sold the suit land to Nachhatar Singh, the plaintiffs have filed this suit. Eventually, prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. Replication was also filed. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD 4. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5 Relief. During the course of evidence, Nachhatar Singh plaintiff himself appeared as PW 2 and examined Raj Kumar PW 1 and Puran Singh PW 3. To the contrary defendants examined Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur DW 1 and also tendered documents Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.10. On scrutiny of evidence, trial court on the basis of order dated 24.7.1963 observed that Kartar Singh son of Ganga Singh was allocated area comprising Khasra Nos. 459//15/2 (4-5) and 16/1 (1-5) which were carved out of the bigger khasra number and as such the defendants remained owners of khasra Nos. 12/2 and 16/2. RSA No.4585 of 2011 4 Consequently, mutation was sanctioned and incorporated in the jamabandi, as such, the defendants have no concern with the aforesaid land i.e. 1 kanal 5 marla comprised in Killa No.459//15/2 (4-5) and 459//16/1 (1-5). Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed qua this land. The judgment was upheld in appeal. However, the plaintiff has still filed the regular second appeal. Arguments heard. Record perused. Actually, the plaintiff is a purchaser of the land from defendants No.4 and 5. Defendants No.4 and 5 are the daughters of Kartar Singh, who was allotted land comprised in Rect. No.459 Killa No.15/2 (4-5) and 16/1 (1-5) on the basis of which mutation No.4015 was sanctioned in favour of Kartar Singh and khasra number allotted to Kartar Singh were segregated and mutation further indicates that possession was transferred in favour of Kartar Singh. Consequently, copy of jamabandi Ex.D.1 further indicates ownership and possession of Kartar Singh over these two khasra bearing Nos. 459//15/2 (4-5) and 16/1 (1-5). Difficulty which has arisen in this case is that despite the fact that land allocated to Kartar Singh was segregated given effect in the revenue record but the area of khasra numbers from which the area was segregated after allocation remained the same. As a matter of fact, this is a glaring mistake on the part of the revenue officials. They should have deducted the area out of these khasra numbers which was allotted to Kartar Singh. The plaintiff being the vendee should have been wise to check the record before purchasing land, therefore, he should suffer for his own fault but one RSA No.4585 of 2011 5 fact is clear that the plaintiff having not disputed the order passed by the additional Settlement Officer dated 24.7.63 on the basis of which mutation No.6365-A was sanctioned, cannot be held to be the owner qua this portion of 1 kanals 9 marlas of land. He being not the owner of the land cannot be granted any injunction against the true owner qua this portion of the land. Findings recorded by both the courts below appear to be well founded and well reasoned. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this court. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 22.11.2011 Judge rp