RSA No 1762 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1762 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 09, 2009 Dara Singh ...........Appellant Versus Dharam Singh and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr.Sanjeev Gupta,Advocate for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 13, 15 to 27 and 29 ** Sabina, J. Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and for permanent injunction. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 15.3.2002. Aggrieved by the same,plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge,Adhoc Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 12.1.2007. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2and 3 of its judgment reads as under:- “2. The case of the unsuccessful plaintiff/appellant Mukhtiara Singh and Harnek Singh are who sons of Bakhshi Singh Smt.Jasmesh Kaur w/o Narata Singh is that they claimed their RSA No 1762 of 2007 2 possession of the agricultural land measuring 44 bighas-18 biswas fully described in the head note of the plaint situated at village Baron, Tehsil and District Patiala. They filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming their possession on the said land measuring 59 bighas-18 biwsas belongs to Inder Singh s/o Som Santokh Singh and he died intestate without any legal heir and inheritance of Inder Singh @ Santokh Singh was mutated in favour of Patidara of Pati Hukmi by mutation No.1136 on 26.11.1965 by A.C. 2nd Grade, Patiala. The said land includes the land in suit and 15 bighas more comprised any khasra No.310 (6-5) and 311 (6-5) and part of the khasra No.306 and 307 and the plaintiffs no. 1 to 3 and deceased bother Narata Singh had been cultivating the land for many years and during the life time of Inder Singh and Narata Singh died about 10 years ago and his widow Jasbir Kaur has filed a suit as a representative/heir. It is allowed that the defendant No.1 to 9 and Mohinder Singh and Karam Singh s/o Sihan Singh father of defendant No.11, 12 and 13 and Chajju Singh s/o of Ram Kishan father of defendant No.14 and grand father of 15 an 16 and Balwant Singh /o Sunder Singh predecessor in interest of defendant No. 4 to 7 and Sampuran Singh s/o Lehra Singh father of defendant No.17 and grand father of defendant no. 18 to 22 filed an application against the plaintiff no.1 to 3 and brother Narata Singh for partition on the aforesaid 59 bighas-18 biswas before A.C Ist Grade, Patiala on the ground that parties are Patidar of pati Hukmi. This application was contested by the plaintiff no. 1 to 3 and their brother of party RSA No 1762 of 2007 3 proceedings entertained to compromise and the said land 44 bighas 18 biswas was allotted to the plaintiff no. 1 to 3 and their brother Narata Singh remaining 15 bighas was allotted to defendant No.1 to 9 and possession of the plaintiff is peaceful from 25 years or more and accordingly on the said compromise dated 22.8.1968 and order dated 31.8.68 estopped defendant from any dispute. Accordingly, this suit was filed through Sh.Vijay Tiwari Advocate 3. The above suit was contested by the defendant no.1 Dharam Singh and others through Sh. Surinder Mohan Goel, Advocate and said written statement which was amended from the original written statement. They denied the compromise and alleged that plea is vague and the plaintiffs are not in possession and there is no partition but the application for partition was filed by Mohinder Singh and others amongst the patidar and it was contested by the plaintiff no. 1 to 3 but there was no compromise and all the patidars never compromised on 22.8.1968 and plea of the compromise against the record and alleged comprise was never acted upon and no instrument dated 22.8.68 is there and it is a result of fraud and the plaintiffs have made material additional alteration in the writing dated 22.8.1968 so they are guilty of perjury and proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C are liable to be quashed against them and order has not been upheld by the collector and status of the plaintiff is not better than defendant and the plaintiffs are not in actual cultivating possession. Accordingly suit was contested and additional objections was raised as under:- RSA No 1762 of 2007 4 “1. That the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable especially when the parties to the suit are co-sharers in the patti and are entitled to own and possess the suit land of their share. The defendants have already applied for partition of the suit land which is pending before the revenue court. The present suit is only abuse of process of court also is liable to be dismissed with costs”. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- "1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction as prayed for ? OPP 1-A. Whether the plaintiffs have become owners of the property in dispute?OPP 2. Whether the suit land has fallen to the shares of the plaintiff by way of partition ?OPP. 3. Relief". After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. The document in dispute which requires consideration in this case is compromise (Exhibit P5). Plaintiffs had placed reliance on the compromise (Exhibit P5) while seeking relief of declaration that he is owner of land measuring 44 Bighas 18 Biswas in dispute. Inder Singh was owner of 59 Bighas 18 Biswas including suit land. He died leaving behind the heirs. His inheritance was mutated in favour of Patridara of Pati Hukmi of village Baron. Mutation in this regard was sanctioned in the year 1965. Admittedly, application for partition was filed. The case of the plaintiffs is RSA No 1762 of 2007 5 that compromise was effected between the parties. The defendants,however, denied compromise dated 22.8.1968. Both the Courts below,after appreciating the evidence on record have given a finding of fact that the compromise (Exhibit P5) was not a genuine document as certain additions/alterations had been made in the said document. Records of the trial Court were summoned in this case. I have also gone through the compromise (Exhibit P5) and perusal of the same reveals that it is a tampered document as certain additions have been made in the same to the effect that 44 bighas 18 biswas of land comes to the share of plaintiffs. From the evidence of expert Navdeep Gupta examined by defendant as DW1, it is evident that the compromise was not a valid document as it had been tampered with. As per the expert, material alterations had been made in the compromise (Exhibit P5). In these circumstances suit of the plaintiffs had been rightly dismissed by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge October 09, 2009 arya