R.S.A.No. 1228 of 2006 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1228 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.8.2009 Pahlada ......Appellant Versus Sadhu and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Sandeep Singh, Advocate, for Mr.Ramesh Chahal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Pahlada filed a suit for declaration, which was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Narwana vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.2003. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Jind vide judgment and decree dated 7.1.2006. Hence, the present appeal. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 to 4 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that he and respondents/defendants set No.3 are owners in R.S.A.No. 1228 of 2006 (O&M) 2 possession to the extent of ½ share in the total land measuring 58 kanals 2 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Danoda Khurd, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind. The other ½ share is reportedly owned and possessed by the respondents/defendants set No.2 but respondent/defendant Sh.Sadhu Ram has no right, title or interest in the property in dispute. The aforesaid Sh.Sadhu had filed a civil suit bearing No.544 in the year 1981 for joint possession of the land in dispute against the appellant/plaintiff which was decided on 29.9.1983. He had claimed 2/3rd share in land measuring 14 kanals and 173/1158 share in land measuring 57 kanals 18 marlas. The court had accepted the claim of Sh.Sadhu Ram to the extent of 2/3rd share in land measuring 14 kanals but his claim was dismissed in respect of 173/1158 shares in land measuring 57 kanals 18 marlas but the entries in the revenue records still continue in favour of Sh.Sadhu. He has no right, title or interest in the land in dispute measuring 57 kanals 18 marlas and the entries in the column of cultivation in his favour to the extent of 173/1158 share deserve to be deleted. He is allegedly bent upon interfering in the possession of the true owners in the land in dispute. Hence, the suit. 3. It has been urged on behalf of respondent/defendant R.S.A.No. 1228 of 2006 (O&M) 3 Sadhu that he is owner in possession to the extent of 173/1158 share in the land measuring 58 kanals 2 marlas. He has further urged that the findings in the previous suit are not binding upon him. He had purchased the property from Sh.Sheo Nath and he is in actual physical possession thereof. He has the right to use the property in the manner he likes. Therefore, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit and his claim is not maintainable. 4. The respondents/defendants set No.2 have urged that the land comprised in Khasra No.780 is owned and possessed by them since the time of their forefathers. The joint piece of land was partitioned by the predecessors-in-interest of the parties more than 50 years ago. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff alongwith defendant set no.2 and 3 are owners in possession of the suit property mentioned in para no.1 of the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the entries in the revenue record in favour of defendant No.1 are illegal, null and void and are liable to be set aside ? OPP R.S.A.No. 1228 of 2006 (O&M) 4 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for want of necessary parties? OPD 8. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, has only submitted that although the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed yet the finding of the trial Court to the effect that defendant had established his title over the suit property was liable to be set aside as in the earlier litigation, defendant had failed to establish that he was owner of the suit property. I am unable to agree with the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant had based his claim on the basis of judgment and decree Ex.P-2 and P-3 dated 29.9.1983. A perusal of the said judgment placed on record as R.S.A.No. 1228 of 2006 (O&M) 5 Annexure A-1, reveals that in a suit filed by defendant Sadhu for joint possession, it was held that he had failed to establish that he had any share in the land measuring 57 kanals 18 marlas. However, it was not held that the plaintiff had any share in the said land. The suit of defendant Sadhu was dismissed regarding the suit property on the basis of an admission made by him during cross-examination. The plaintiff has failed to prove on record any document of title in his favour. Rather defendant proved on record registered sale deed executed by Sheo Nath, predecessor-in-interest, of defendant No.2 dated 9.10.1972 Ex.D-1. Ex.D-4 mutation was sanctioned in favour of Sadhu with regard to 173/1158 shares purchased by him from Sheo Nath in the suit property. Sadhu had thus placed on record a document of title in his favour. In the earlier suit, it appears from Annexure A-1 that defendant Sadhu had failed to place on record that the sale deed in his favour and he only relied upon entries in the jamabandi and mutation. The observations made by the Courts below that defendant Sadhu had established his title on the basis of sale deed is based on evidence led in this case and hence, no interference is called for by this Court. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 11, 2009 anita