RSA No.4218 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4218 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 16.3.2009 Sawinder Singh ......Appellant Versus Leela Wanti and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate for the appellant. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.12635-C of 2008 For the reasons recorded in the application, delay of 26 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.4218 of 2008 This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for possession of the suit land was dismissed. The case of the plaintiff as set up in the plaint is that earlier Nand Singh, was the erstwhile occupancy tenant in the suit land, who became owner thereof. Lachhman Singh, father of the appellant was declared successor of Nand Singh, by the then Senior Sub Judge, Amritsar, in civil suit No.09 of 1926 decided on 24.6.1926. Father of the appellant died in the year 1964-65 and the appellant came in possession of the suit land. It was further averred that the suit land was given to the father of the appellant during consolidation proceedings in lieu of the land, RSA No.4218 of 2008(O&M) 2 occupied by Nand Singh and the respondents have no right, title or interest therein and about two years ago, the respondents with the help of police had usurped the suit property. Hence, the suit for possession. Respondent No.1 in his written statement raised various preliminary objections and also denied the ownership and possession of the appellant over the suit land and instead claimed himself to be in possession thereof. It was further averred that originally Nand Singh was owner of the suit property as Gair Marusi and after his death, his estate was inherited by Partap Singh, grandfather of respondent No.1 and after his death, his estate was inherited by father of respondent No.1 and after the death of his father, Hari Singh had inherited the estate of his father and thereafter, respondent No.1 became owner of the suit land by operation of law after the death of her father and she became owner and occupier of the suit land. It was further averred that ownership and possession of the suit land, has already been declared by the then SJIC, Amritsar, vide judgment dated 24.11.1993. It was further averred that the judgment dated 24.6.1926, does not create any right, title or interest in favour of Lachhman Singh or in favour of the appellant. It was also denied that the suit land was allotted to the father of the appellant in consolidation proceedings. It was denied that she took forcible possession of the suit property from the appellant. Consequently, prayer for dismissal of the suit was, thus, made. Respondent No.2, in his separate written statement apart from taking preliminary objections, which have been taken by respondent No.1, in his written statement, denied the ownership and possession of the appellant over the suit land and claimed himself to be owner and occupier, thereof. It was further averred that Nand Singh, was owner and in possession of the suit land and after his death, Labh Singh, grandfather of respondent No.2, was owner and occupier of the suit land RSA No.4218 of 2008(O&M) 3 and after his death, suit land came in possession of Ujagar Singh, father of respondent No.2 and after the death of Ujagar Singh, he (respondent No.2) has become owner and occupier of the suit land. Consequently, prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. After hearing both the sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved therefrom, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Judge, Amritsar, which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 31.7.2007. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Undisputedly, the appellant and one Jaswant Singh had filed civil suit No.153 of 13.5.1986 against respondent No.2 and one Mukhtiar Singh, for declaration to the effect that the appellant was owner and occupier of the suit land. Indubitably, this suit was dismissed by the then Sub Judge 1st Class, Amritsar, vide judgment and decree Ex.DW-3/3 and Ex.DW-3/4 respectively, holding that Leela Wanti-respondent No.1 herein, inherited the suit land and became owner and occupier thereof. It was further held that Sawinder Singh-appellant herein who was plaintiff No.1 in the suit ibid has neither been proved to be owner of the suit land through Nand Singh nor he was ever in possession thereof for the last more than 12 years, preceding the institution of the suit, either personally or through his tenant and it was held that the plaintiffs cannot claim any right, title or interest in the disputed land. This judgment was upheld by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar in civil appeal No.21 of 1989 vide judgment Ex.DW-3/5 and decree Ex.DW-3/6. Even civil suit for permanent injunction in respect of suit land filed by Leela Wanti-respondent No.1 was decreed in civil appeal No.32 of 1985/86 by holding her in possession of the suit land and accordingly permanent injunction as prayed for was RSA No.4218 of 2008(O&M) 4 granted to her against the appellant-Sawinder Singh herein and one Jaswant Singh. Thus, in these circumstances, the Courts below were right in holding that the suit of the appellant was barred by principles of res judicata and the judgment dated 24.6.1926 rendered in civil suit No.09 of 1926 becomes inconsequential to the appellant in view of judgments and decrees Ex.DW-3/3 to Ex.DW-3/8. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to find fault with the findings of the Courts below on the material issues. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. March 16, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE