R.S.A. No.2613 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.2613 of 2005 Date of Decision:6.11.2008 Bhullan Ram .....Appellant Vs. Parkash and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for Mr. R.D. Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. (Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment/ decree dated 29.3.2005 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rewari whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment/ decree dated 9.3.2004 rendered by the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari whereby he decreed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants permanently from interfering into the ownership/ possession of the plaintiff over the disputed site/ plot as shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.PW6/1. The facts which form the backdrop of the suit are that the plaintiff was the exclusive owner in possession of a plot bearing Ahata No.109 and Ghar No.192 as described in the plaint and shown in red colour in the site plan. Prior to the plaintiff, his forefathers were the owners in possession of the same. During family settlement, this plot fell to the share of the plaintiff, who had been using the same. He has filled up the R.S.A. No.2613 of 2005 -2- foundations for constructing the house in the same. The defendants who are head strong persons were interfering with the ownership/ possession of the plaintiff and bent upon to dispossess him illegally and forcibly. They were requested by the plaintiff to desist from doing so, but of no avail. On these allegations, the suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the ownership/ possession of the plaintiff over the disputed plot. In answer to this claim, the defendants in their joint written statement have inter-alia pleaded that the disputed plot was ancestral property of the defendants with which the plaintiff or any member of his family had no concern. The same was being used by the defendants since the time of their forefathers. The boundary and dimensions thereof as given by the plaintiff are wrong. Since the plaintiff and the members of his family did not have connection whatsoever with the disputed property at any point of time, so the question of arriving at any family settlement with respect thereto between them did not arise at all. Traversing other facts in the plaint, it has been prayed that the suit may be dismissed with costs. The following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the suit property has been inherited and the suit property came to the share of the plaintiff as per mutual family settlement? OPP 3. Whether the suit property is the ancestral property of the defendant No.1 and 2, as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction? OPD R.S.A. No.2613 of 2005 -3- 5. Whether the plaintiff has no right to sue? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 7. Relief. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court decreed the suit as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the defendants went up in appeal, which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rewari. Being undaunted and dissatisfied therewith, defendant- Bhullan Ram has preferred this appeal. The following substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court: “Whether Ext. PW3/AT, i.e., copy of Nakal Khasra Abadi proves the title of the plaintiff? I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record as well as the findings returned by both the Courts below with due care and circumspection. Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant urged with great eloquence that the Courts below have gravely erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff- respondent on the basis of Ex.PW3/A which is a copy of Nakal Khasra Abadi for the reason that this document does not tally with the khasra paimaish and the plaintiff- respondent has failed to tender the Akash-Sajra of the site in dispute. He further argued that there is no demarcation Report or other evidence on the file to show that the land in dispute is a part of Ahata No.109 and Ghar No.192 though as per the site plan, house-tax receipt, copy of assessment R.S.A. No.2613 of 2005 -4- register Ex.DW2/1 to Ex.DW2/13, the appellant is the owner in possession of the plot in dispute. To tide over these submissions, Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate representing the respondents argued that the documents referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be substituted for proof of title to the plot in dispute and that being so, these have been rightly discarded. I have well considered the rival contentions. The basic document sought to be relied upon by the plaintiff- respondent is Ex.PW3/A-T which purportedly came into being in Samwat 1986. Ostensibly, this official document was prepared long ago. In this document against Sr. No.109, Ghar No.192 has been shown to be the ownership of Tota son of Gumani, who is none else but the grandfather of the plaintiff. The copies of assessment register or the receipts showing the payment of house tax in no manner can be deemed to be the documents of title. The entries in the assessment register merely depict the occupier and the rental value of the property unit. So, on the basis of Ex.DW2/1 to Ex.DW2/13, the defendants cannot be held to be the owners in possession of the disputed plot. If the suit plot is not a part of Ahata No.109 and Ghar No.192, the defendants should have recourse to the demarcation proceedings. It is worth pointing here that the suit has been filed in respect of this very Ahata as well as Ghar. The defendants have not adduced any cogent, convincing and clear evidence operating as rebuttal to this document. In the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant regretted his inability to draw attention towards any document revealing title of the defendant- appellant to the property in dispute. On reading Ex.PW3/A-T, it transpires that it proves the title of the plaintiff- respondent through his grandfather. R.S.A. No.2613 of 2005 -5- The defendant- appellant has put forth that the land in dispute is ancestral property. There is no evidence in proof of this plea. In view of the preceding discussion, the concurrent findings returned by both the Courts below call for no interference and are affirmed. Sequelly, this appeal is dismissed. November 06, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE