IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.255 of 1989 Date of Decision: 12.8.2011 Darshan Singh and others. ....... Appellants through Shri Nitin Sarin, Advocate. Versus Chanan Singh and others. ...... Respondents through Shri I.S.Vimal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK .... 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? .... VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J. Claiming succession of Dalu son of Sher Singh, Jat, a resident of village Dhaliwal, Tehsil Nakodar being his sister's children, the plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit seeking possession of some agricultural land, a house and two vacant plots along with mesne profits in a sum of Rs.10000/-. It was pleaded that the defendants- respondents had set up a Will of Dalu in a previous suit and claimed ownership over the entire property. The said suit was lost by them up R.S.A.No.255 of 1989 -2- .... to the High Court where their regular second appeal was dismissed on 26.5.1983. Alleging that the possession of the defendants over the suit property is wrongful and that they were liable to pay mense property, the suit was brought. Defendant nos. 1 and 3 alone resisted the suit. The claim against other defendants was given up by learned counsel for the plaintiffs by making a statement in this regard on 30.8.1983. Defendant nos. 1 and 3 denied the ownership of the plaintiffs over the property in question. Defendant no.1 was claimed to be in possession of 18 kanals of land and defendant no.3 was said to be in possession of 32 kanals and 12 marlas of land along with the house and plots. They have taken contradictory pleas of possession over the land as tenants as well as becoming owners thereof by adverse possession. They have denied the claim of the plaintiffs to the suit property and prayed for dismissal of the suit. Learned trial court framed the following issues on the pleadings of the parties:- 1. Whether the house and taur in dispute was owned by Dalu?OPP 2. Whether Santi was a sister of Dalu?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are the heirs of Santi?OPP 4. Whether the defendants are in illegal possession of the R.S.A.No.255 of 1989 -3- .... taur and house in dispute?OPP 5. Whether the defendants No.1 and 3 are in possession of the suit land, mentioned in para No.4 of the preliminary objection of the written statement as tenant? If so, then effect thereof?OPD 6. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?OPP 7. Whether the description of the land in dispute is incorrect?OPD 8. Whether the suit is bad for multifariousness?OPD 9. Whether there has been decision of the court upto High Court with respect to the property in dispute and effect thereof?OPD 10. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the suit as alleged in the written statement?OPD 11. Whether the suit is not within limitation?OPD 12. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profits? If so, to what effect?OPP 13. Relief. Evidence of the parties had been taken and the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 20.7.1985. Feeling aggrieved, defendants, Chanan Singh and Lashkar R.S.A.No.255 of 1989 -4- .... Singh preferred an appeal before the first appellate court. During the pendency of the first appeal, learned counsel for Chanan Singh and Lashkar Singh conceded the claim of the opposite party regarding the agricultural land because they had lost their claim to it in the previous suit up to the High Court. They, however, asserted their ownership over the house and the plots in question. Learned first appellate court had found the defendants to have no rightful claim over the plots. However, it was found that the defendants had a right to possess the house in question as the plaintiffs failed to lead any evidence to prove that the same was owned by Dalu, their predecessor-in-interest. Consequently, learned first appellate court modified the decision of learned trial court by partly accepting the appeal and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs qua landed property, the taur and the plot in dispute. Their suit for possession of the house in question was dismissed. The claim of the plaintiffs for mense profits was also decreed against defendant no.1 for Rs.2000/- and against defendant no.3 for a sum of Rs.3500/-. Still dis-satisfied, the plaintiffs have brought this regular second appeal. I have heard Shri Nitin Sarin, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri I.S.Vimal, learned counsel for the respondents. I have also gone through the record carefully. R.S.A.No.255 of 1989 -5- .... The claim of the plaintiffs to the suit property except the house in question stands decreed. Learned counsel for the appellants has simply submitted that when the defendants have failed in their claim made to the property of Dalu on the strength of a Will, they have no case over the house in question as well. In my view, this submission has no merit. There is nothing on record to show that the house in question was a part of the property involved in the previous suit and that the judgment passed therein binds the defendants with regard to the house in question. If that is so, the plaintiffs were required to prove the ownership of Dalu over the house in question in this suit. No cogent evidence was found by learned first appellate court to have been led by the plaintiffs to prove that the house in question was owned by Dalu. The defendants are admittedly in possession thereof and in these circumstances, learned first appellate court was right in concluding that the plaintiffs have not been able to prove the ownership of Dalu over the house in question. Therefore, I find no substantial question of law arising in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal is found to have no merit and is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. ( VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE August 12,2011 “SCM”