IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 1021 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 8.2.2010 Harnam Singh. ....... Appellant. Versus Ajaib Singh and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present:Shri S.N.Chopra, Advocate for the appellant. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This is defendant's Regular Second Appeal against judgments and decrees dated 28.7.2004 and 17.8.2007 passed respectively by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amloh (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib (referred to hereinafter as `the first appellate Court'). The plaintiffs- Ajaib Singh, Sohan Singh,Jagdev Singh,Gurcharan Singh, Bhajan Singh (since deceased) through legal representatives, Charan Singh and Swaraj Singh sought a declaration in the civil suit filed by them that the entries in the revenue record regarding the R.S.A.No.1021 of 2008 -2- .... property in dispute were liable to be corrected by entering their names and those of the persons who were impleaded as proforma defendant nos. 2 to 4 as owners. Injunction was also prayed for to restrain the defendant-Harnam Singh from interfering in their peaceful possession over the property in dispute. The suit was filed by invoking the provisions of Section 45 of the Land Revenue Act read with Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. It was pleaded that Veer Kaur wife of Ganda Singh owned land in her name which was allotted in the revenue estate of village Tangrala; that she died in the year 1947 leaving behind her son, i.e., the defendant as her sole legal heir to succeed to her estate. The defendant used to cultivate the land in dispute as owner after the death of his mother; that the defendant sold the land measuring 63 kanals 17 marlas to Ujjagar Singh son of Rulia Singh on 15.6.1959 for a sale consideration of Rs.8000/- vide a deed which was registered on 16.6.1959; that the said Ujjagar Singh remained in possession of the aforesaid land as owner thereafter; that he further sold the suit land in favour of Karnail Singh and his brothers, namely, Jarnail Singh, Ranjit Singh and Jagir Singh, the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants vide sale deed dated 28.12.1961 and consequently, they were put in possession thereof and after their death, their legal representatives came into possession of the suit land. It was averred that somehow the entries in the revenue records still reflected Smt.Veer Kaur to be the owner of the suit land and that the defendant, on that basis, was trying to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants. R.S.A.No.1021 of 2008 -3- .... Upon notice, the defendant-Harnam Singh and the legal representatives of defendant no.2-Jarnail Singh put in appearance. In their written statement, the legal representative of defendant no.2 admitted the claim of the plaintiffs, while the defendant contested the suit and pleaded that it was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that Piar Kaur daughter of Veer Kaur and sons & daughters of Kartar Kaur, another daughter of Veer Kaur were the necessary parties and the suit, in their absence, cannot proceed further. The bar of limitation was also pleaded. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed as many as seven issues and after considering the entire evidence on record, it decreed the suit. The appeal filed by the defendant was also dismissed by the first appellate Court giving rise to the instant appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Veer Kaur was survived by two daughters, namely, Piar Kaur and Kartar Kaur and that the application to implead them as party to the suit was dismissed on the ground that they were not proved to be the daughters of Veer Kaur. He further contended that in view of this when necessary parties were not impleaded, the suit should have been dismissed. He, thus, prayed that the impugned judgments be set aside. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised by him are totally without any merit. Even though, it was averred by the appellant that Piar Kaur and Kartar Kaur were the daughters of Veer Kaur, R.S.A.No.1021 of 2008 -4- .... no evidence was led to prove this fact. It was also pleaded by the appellant that Kartar Kaur died leaving only Piar Kaur to be the alleged contestant as legal heir of Veer Kaur, but regarding her also, except for the oral statements of a few witnesses, no documentary proof was produced, so much so, Piar Kaur herself was not examined as a witness. Even if it has to be assumed that Piar Kaur was not impleaded as a party to the suit, the matter could have been clinched if she would have been examined as a witness. On the basis of this, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is misplaced and has to be rejected. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, has been shown to have arisen for determination in this appeal which is totally devoid of any merit and is dismissed. February 8,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge