RSA No.1486 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1486 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision 8.8.2011. Sugan Chand ...... Appellant. versus Civil Panchayat . ...... Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present : Mr. Ram Chander Advocate for the appellants. K.C.PURI . J. The challenge in this appeal is the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2010 passed by Smt.Vani Gopal Sharma, Additional District Judge, Karnal filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2009 passed by Mrs.Swati Sharma, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal vide which the suit of the plaintiff for declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit property was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 1 kanal comprised in khewat No.108min khatauni No.148 rect.No.138min (1-0) gair mumkin RSA No.1486 of 2011 2 makan situated in village Dadupur Tehsil Nilokheri District Karnal as per jamabandi for the year 2000-01. It is pleaded that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property since 1963. He has raised construction over that land. Plaintiff has further pleaded that defendant has issued notice under Section 16 of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 on 9.2.1963 upon his father. The plaintiff previously has filed suit for permanent injunction wherein Sarpanch Nathi Ram suffered statement that he will not interfere in the possession of the plaintiff. Consequently, that suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.10.1998. The plaintiff is in settled possession of the suit property as owner and the title has passed from Gram Panchayat to the plaintiff on payment of auction money. Defendant is still recorded owner of the suit property. Hence this suit. 3. On put to notice, defendant filed written statement taking preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the suit, locus standi, jurisdiction cause of action and suppression of true and material facts. 4. On merits, it is submitted that Gram Panchayat is owner of the suit property and the plaintiff is not in legal and authorized possession. The property was never auctioned in favour of the plaintiff. 5. The plaintiff filed replication re-settling the stand taken in the plaint and denied the contents of the written statement. 6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for declaration, as prayed for ?OPP 2. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit ?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and RSA No.1486 of 2011 3 cause of action to file the present suit ?OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties ?OPD 5. Relief. 7. Plaintiff in order to prove his case himself appeared as PW-1 and also examined Ravinder Kumar, DRK (PW-2) and Zile Singh Advocate as (PW-3) and closed his evidence after tendering certain documents into evidence. 8. On the other hand defendant examined Balwan Singh Sarpanch (DW-1) and closed the evidence after tendering certain documents into evidence. 9. The learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 31.3.2009 10. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has preferred First Appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.2010 passed by Smt. Vani Gopal Sharma, Additional District Judge, Karnal. 11. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgments and decrees, dated 31.3.2009 and dated 13.12.2010, plaintiff has filed the present second appeal. 12. The appellant in paragraph No.12 of the grounds of appeal has mentioned that following substantial questions of law have arisen :- a) Whether the judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below are perverse being based on non- consideration of the evidence lead by the appellant- plaintiff ? b) Whether judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below are not sustainable being based on RSA No.1486 of 2011 4 misreading of evidence ? c) Whether the learned courts below have erred in recording the findings by ignoring the cogent evidence lead by the appellant-plaintiff ? 13. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that an application under Section 30 read with Order 11 Rule 1 CPC was filed to produce the document by the defendant. The defendant Gram Panchayat has not produced any document of auction of the land. So, an adverse inference should have been drawn by both the Courts below. The trial Court has misinterpreted and misread the evidence in this regard on the file. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit property since 1963 when the same was purchased by plaintiff from the defendant. So, in these circumstances both the Courts below have wrongly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the case file. 15. There is nothing on the file that judgment of both the courts below are perverse. There is nothing on the file that the judgment is result of misreading of the evidence on the file. So, both the Courts below have rightly held that mere filing of application under Section 30 read with Order 11 Rule 1 CPC is not sufficient to prove the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration claiming himself to be owner of the suit land but there is no documentary evidence on the file to prove the fact that plaintiff was ever allotted the suit property or has ever paid any consideration. There is nothing on the file that competent authority of Gram Panchayat has given sanction to alienate RSA No.1486 of 2011 5 the property in favour of the plaintiff or his father. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership in respect of the suit property cannot be interfered in the second appeal in view of section 100 of the CPC. 16. So, in view of the above discussion, the substantial questions of law raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are answered against the appellant. 17. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. 18. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE August 8th , 2011 sv