RSA No.3042 of 2004 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 3042 of 2004 Date of decision: April 21,2011 Hardev Singh ......Appellant Versus Executive Officer Panchayat Samiti and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Manish Gupta,Advocate for the appellant None for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Hardev Singh had filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of half share along with the trees standing thereon. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that Sant Kaur, previous owner, had sold half share out of the suit land to the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 1.3.1989. The Office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer was situated on the eastern side of Khasra No. 33/7/1. Defendants No. 1 and 2 were illegally claiming ownership qua the trees standing in Khasra No. 33/7/1. Defendants No. 1 and 2, in their written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that eucalyptus trees RSA No.3042 of 2004 2 numbering 52 to 66 were owned and possessed by the defendants. The eucalyptus trees in question did not belong to the plaintiff. Defendant No.3, in its written statement, averred that the suit may be dismissed as no relief was claimed against the answering defendant. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land?OPP 2.Whether the Safeda trees in question are on the land mentioned in the head note of the plaint?OPP 3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for?OPD 4.Whether the suit is barred under the principle of resjudicata?OPD 5.Whether the plaintiff has got no locus-standi to file the present suit?OPD 6.Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?OPD 7.Whether the defendant No.1 has validly auctioned the trees in question?OPD 8.Relief” The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.9.2003 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants No. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal. The Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 11.6.2004 allowed the appeal and, consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. Cross objections filed by the plaintiff were also dismissed. Hence, the RSA No.3042 of 2004 3 present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be allowed. The substantial question of law that arises in this appeal is as to whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court are against the evidence on record and, hence, perverse. In the present case, the plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration that he was owner in possession to the extent of half share out of the suit land and the trees standing thereon belonged to the plaintiff. In order to establish his case, plaintiff led oral as well as documentary evidence. As per Exhibit P6, copy of the jamabandi for the year 1992-93, plaintiff was described to be owner in possession of Khasra No. 33/7/1(7-11) to the extent of half share. Plaintiff proved on record copy of the sale deed (Exhbit P13) vide which he had purchased the suit property from Sant Kaur. Plaintiff also proved on record the demarcation report (Exhibit P8) dated 15.9.2000 and the site plan (Exhibit P9) prepared by the Local Commissioner. Thereafter, another Local Commissioner was appointed, on an application moved by the plaintiff, by the Court. The said Local Commissioner vide report dated 8.2.2003 submitted that the land measuring 3 marlas 7 sarsahis was in illegal possession of Panchayat Samiti, Bhuga. It was also reported by the Local Commissioner that 10 Safeda trees were standing on the said encroached portion. Defendants, however, failed to lead any evidence to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff. Defendants also did not summon the Local Commissioner for the purpose of RSA No.3042 of 2004 4 examination in the Court. Since the evidence led by the plaintiff had gone unrebutted to the effect that 3 marlas 7 sarsahis land belonging to the plaintiff had been encroached by the defendants, the suit filed by the plaintiff was liable to be decreed. The learned First Appellate Court has misinterpreted the evidence led on record by the plaintiff and, hence, the findings arrived at by the learned First Appellate Court are perverse. The substantial question of law that arises in this case stands answered accordingly. Hence, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court are set aside. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court are upheld. ( SABINA ) JUDGE April 21, 2011 arya