62 27 P RSA No58 of 1985 1 4Fr6 4 4 e 6 lN THE HlGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 1 CHANDIGARH RSA No58 of 1985 Date ofdecision 03082010 n Gurdev Singh Appellant 1 versus 0 0 Shri RonqiRam C5 4 I CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTICE KCPURl Z W Present Mr SarwanSinghSeniorAdvocate with 1 Mr NSRQpri Advocate for theappellant I Mr DRMahajanAdvocate for 08 Oo K CPURI J s1 em Z This is a reguIarsecondappealdirectedby tl againstthe judgmentdated 3011984 passedby Mrsakhshish Kaur Additional District Judge Kapurthala vide which the appealpreferred by theplaintifappellantagainstthejudgment dated251983 passedby Shri SCSharma Sub JudgeIst Class Phagwaradismissing the suit of the plaintiffstood set aside and the suit was decreed Shorn off unnecessarydetails the case of the plaintiffas set forth in theplaintis thatRonqiRamplaintiffhad purchased land 21 kanals4 and 536 situated within the Revenue Estate of VilIageBohani Tehsil Phagwarathrough publicsale held in the year 1975 for Rs51001 which was confinned by J KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.05.18 10: 11 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 63 00 RSA NoA58 of 1985 2 Kd the Sale Commissioner on 3181 978 The possession was delivered to him by the Tehsildar on 1571980 The objections taken by the defendantagainstthe deliveryof were dismissed Therefore the plaintiffis entitled to the of the land in disputebecauseGurdev Singh1S 111 unauthorizedand illegal of the Iand beinga tr trespasseragalnsta true owner 0 0 The suit was resisted by the on the I grounds that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and the C I presentsuit because it is barred by the Punjab PackageDeal Propenies Z DisposalAct 1976 and also by the PunjabPublic Premises and Land Eviction and Rent Recovery1Act The defendanthaspleadedinter alia thattheplaintiffhas no locus standito file the suit It is barredbytime and I c6 is not maintainable in the presentform It is allegedthat plaintiffhad not QO the land in disputein publicauction as allegedhis 7 Z over the land in disputeis quiteillegaland therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed Followingissueswere framed 1 Whethertheplaintiffisowner ofthe land in suit 20PP 2 Whether the Court has no jurisdictionto try the presentsuit as nientioned in para Nol of the preliminaryobjection9 OPD 3 Whether the plaintiffhas no locus standi to 61ethe preset suit 20PD 4 Whether the plaintiffhasgot no cause ofaction against the defendant70PD 5 Whetherthe suit is timebarred9 OPD 6 Whetherthe suit is maintainabIein the presentform 20PD KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.05.18 10: 11 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 64 RSA N458 of 1985 3 L 7 Whetherthe suit is properly valued for the purposeofCour fee 70PD 8 Reli The partieshave led their respective evidence on the aforesaid 1 issues After appraisal ofthe evidence the leamedtrial Court decided issue C No l in favour of the defendant and againstthe plaintiffwhereas lSsue 0 C0 Nos to 6 in favour of the plaintiffsand againstthe defendant and I dismissedthe suit ofthe and decreedated258 1983 C I Feelingdissatistled with the judgmentand decree 2581 983 Z passed byShri SCSharma Sub JudgeIst Class Phagwara the appeal was beforethe First Appellate Court bytheplaintiff The said appealwas allowed by learned Additional District I a5 JudgeKapurthalavide judgmentdated 3011 984 and the suit of the ClO plaintiffstood decreed 7 Z Feeling dissatisfled with the dated 30 11984 haspreferred the presentregularsecond appealbefore this Court I have heard learned counsel for the partiesand have gone through the recordsofthe case The appellanton 7A2008 has moved an application that followingsubstantialquestions oflaw are involved in the presentappeal 1 Whether the title passes to the purchaserin an auction sale on paymentof full priceor on the date of confirmation of the sale or on the dateofissuance ofsale certificate 2 2 Whether the lower Appellate Court could reverse the findingofthe trial court without meeting thereasoningiven by thetrial court while reaching theconclusion 2 3 Whether theplaintiff was entitledto possession without KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.05.18 10: 11 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 65 J RSA NoA58 of 1985 4 4 9 1 provingoftitle 7 4 Whetherthe LAC hasnot appliedthe mind to the facts and circumstancesofthe case 2 5e Whether theLAC hasmisreadthe evidence2 6 Whether under PackageDeed Properties Act duringthe pendency of appealthe jurisdiction of the Civil court is 1 barred2 0 Learned counsel for the appellanthas submitted that the 0 plaintiffhas wronglyclaimed the Suit property on the basis of title The I C trial Court reached to the conclusion that plaintiffhas failed to prove his title in the suit propertyand dismissed his suit The First Z AppellateCourt has acceptedthe appealwithout meetingthe reasoning givenbythe trial Court in dismissing the suit The First AppellateCourt I has not appliedlts mind to the facts of the presentcase The evidence on 08 the file has been misread and The jurisdiction of the Civil m Court is barred to deal with the disposalof the land under PackageDeed 7 Z PropertiesAct The documentsExsl to P7 relied upon by the First Appellate Court does not prove the ownership of theplaintiffover the SUlt propertyDocument Ex2 is simplyorder on conOrmationof sale The salecertiflcatehas not been produced and as such thejudgment ofthe First Appellate Court is required to be set asideafter accepting theappeal Learned counsel for the has supported thejudgment and decree of the First AppellateCoun It is submittedthat the flnding recordedby the First AppellateCourt cannotbe interfered unlessthe same lS perverse To supportthis contention learned counsel for the hasrelied upon followingauthorities KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.05.18 10: 11 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 66 RSA NoA58 of 1985 5 m m 1 Bawa Sineh VS Haqiqat Sin2h and others 20050I RCR Civi11835 9 2 Mste Sueani VS Rameshwar Da0Anr2006 f41 RCR Civill 319 1 Boodireddv Chandraiah and Orse VS Ariela Laxmi and Anre 200741RCR Civil 353 9 0 Co 4 1Santosh Hazari VS Purushottam tiwai Deadl bv Lrs I 200131RCRCivin 243 and C I 451Amar Singhvs Laiva Devi and others 2009131RCR Z Civill 7610 The main contentionraised by the counsel for the appellant 1S that plaintiffhas failed to prove his ownership in respectof suit property I 08 and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed The trial Court has simply r observedthat ExP4 khasranumberhas not beenmentionedand as such the Z title ofthe plaintiffisnot provedThe trial Court hasnot discussedthe other C documentsotherthan ExP4 The First AppellateCourt in para No8 of its judgmenthas discussedeach and every documentand reachedto the conclusion that SUlt land has been allotted to the plaintiffln the roznamcha Ex6 specific khasranumbershas been mentioned and of the same has been delivered to the plaintiff In the revenue record in Khasra girdwarithe nameof RonqiRam has been shown to be owner in possessionbut later on the same has been corrected in favour of Gurdev Singh In thejamabandi 197980 possessionof RonqiRam has been shown ln respectof suit propertyExP4 is the conflrmationofsale in favour ofplaintiffAlthough KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.05.18 10: 11 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 67 RSA No58 of 1985 6 e 1 thenumberhas not been mentionedin ExP4 but that documenthas to be readin consonance with Roznamcha ExP6 One another circumstance which militates againstthe case of the appellant 1S that he filed an under Section 90fPackageDeals PropertyAct wherein speciflc 1 khasranumbershave beenmentionedand haschallenged the transferof the suit land in favour ofRonqiRam but remainedunsuccessful The nding 0 0 of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court in thesecircumstancesdoes I not call for any interferencein view of the authority Mst Suanis case C5 I Isupral in 25 held as under Z 25 It is not within the domain of the High Court to the groundson which the findingswere arrivedat by the last court of fact It is true that the I 08 lower appellateCOurt should not ordinarilyreject r12 wltnesses acceptedby the trial court in respect of 7 Z credibilitybut even where it has rejectedthe witnesses acceptedby the trial court the same ls no groundfor interferencein second appealwhen it is found that the appellate court has given reasons for doing SO In a case where from a givenset of circumstances two interferenceare possible One drawn by the lower appellateCOUrt lS bindingon the High Court in second appealAdoptingany other approachlSnot The High Court cannot substitute its opinionfor the 0p1111011 of the first appellate court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate court were KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.05.18 10: 11 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 68 21 RSA NoA58 of 1985 7 erroneous beingcontraryto the provisions of law applicable or lts settled positionon the basis of madeby the Apex Court or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without 1 evidence 99 r In the aforementionedauthorityit has beensettledthat even if 0 0 two inferenceare possibleone drawn by the lower Court but the inference 0 drawn by the First AppellateCourt is bindingon the HighCourt in the second appealunless the same is erroneous or contrary to the mandatory Z provisions or settledpositionof law or is based on inadmissible evidence n There is nothing on the file which would show that a conclusion regarding r ownership ofthe plaintiffwas drawnbythe Appellate Court on the basis of I 08 unsettledprepositionof law based on inadmissible evidence and without r anyevidence Moreover it is a civil case and it has to be decided on the 7 Z of evidence The plaintiffhas provedand substantiated evidenceofownership on the file The havefailed to produceany contraryevidence The full pricehas been paidas per roznamcha The sale has beenconfirmed in favour of plaintif Mere fact Met that salecertitlcatehas been issued doesnot invalidatethe sale in favour of 11 the plaintiff The Lower AppellateCourt was well within its rightsto reverse the flndingsof trial Court The reasoninghas been givenby the First Appellate Court for reversingthe Ondingof ownership The plaintiff has beenable to prove his ownership as heIdbythe First AppellateCourt It cannot be said that the First AppellateCourt has not appliedits mind to the facts and circumstancesof the case No pointedattentionhas been KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.05.18 10: 11 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 69 RSA No58 of 1985 8 4 drawnduringthe course of argumentsshowingthat the evidence has been misreadand bythe The First Appellate Coun Mere fact that one time the propertywas deal property does not bar the civil courtto decidethe factum ofownership 1 So all the substantialquestions of law raised bythe appellant mentionedabove stands determinedagainstthe and 0 0 the appealfails and the same stands dismissed with costs I C Decree sheetbeprepared I A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict Z compliance r 1 JUDGE August03rd 2010 08 SV r Z 61 KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.05.18 10: 11 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document