RSA No. 115 of 1982 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: August 13, 2009 1. RSA No. 115 of 1982 Nandu Ram vs. Pir Tirath Nath Chela Pir Ravail Nath 2. RSA No. 116 of 1982 Mohinder Singh vs. Pir Tirath Nath Chela Pir Ravail Nath and others Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for respondent-PunjabWakf Board. **** Ajay Tewari, J. Appeal No.115 of 1982 has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession of Khasra No. 143 (original Khasra No. 1031). The following question has been proposed:- “Whether the plaintiff-respondent could seek possession of property more than that which had been allotted to him? It is not disputed that originally the respondent was allotted whole Khasra No. 143 but subsequently a corrigendum was issued whereby only 2373 square yards was allotted to him. Both the Courts have also found as a fact that the respondent is in possession of 5 kanals of land. Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, argued that with regard to RSA No. 116 of 1982 the appellant was initially claiming under the Wakf Board and in an earlier suit between the respondent and the Wakf Board it was held that the appellant was the RSA No. 115 of 1982 2 owner of the suit property. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the decision of the earlier suit would thus be res judicata and that the appellant would not be able to challenge his ownership of the entire Khasra number. However, it transpires that in that earlier suit the dispute was only with regard to a portion of old khasra No. 1031 while in the present suit the respondent is claiming possession over the entire khasra No. 1031. There is no dispute about the fact that in respect of one portion of old khasra No.1031 (viz. 2373 square yards) the respondent is the owner and judgment in relation to that property would definitely be res judicata in the present case. Learned counsel have also argued several peripheral issues regarding the applicability or otherwise of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951. However, the question whether the procedure as envisaged under that Act was followed or not would become relevant only if the respondent had been allotted the entire old Khasra No. 1031. As matters stand he is in admitted possession not only of the area allotted to him but even more than that. In this view of the matter the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff has to fail for the simple reason that the allotment in his favor was little less than 4 kanals but he was found concurrently by both the Courts below to be in possession of 5 kanals of land. Consequently this appeal is allowed. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside and the suit filed by the respondent for possession of the entire khasra No. 143 (old khasra No. 1031) is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 20, 2009 sunita