IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 5288 of 2003 Date of Decision : March 27, 2008 Kaushalya Devi and others ....Appellants Versus Raghunandan Kumar .....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. I.S. Bajwa, Advocate for the respondent. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for permanent injunction filed by Tilak Raj, predecessor-in- interest of the appellants, was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dasuya on 15.11.1999. Aggrieved of the same, the appellants filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur on 2.9.2003. The appellants have, thereafter, filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was averred in the plaint that plot shown with letters ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’, ‘F’ and ‘A’ in red and green colour in the site plan and measuring 313 sq. yards and 6 sq. ft. forming southern part of khasra No. 184/2 situated in the revenue estate of Dasuya was evacuee property. Vide conveyance deed dated 4.8.1987, Tehsildar Sales-cum-Managing Officer, Dasuya transferred the same Regular Second Appeal No. 5288 of 2003 -2- in favour of Tilak Raj-plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 7842/-. Thus, he was owner in possession of the above mentioned property. However, the revenue entries showed possession on a part of this property under the defendant- respondent, which were palpably wrong. It was on account of the fact that while sanctioning mutation No. 4858, the revenue authorities did not correctly carve out the Tatimma of the area purchased by the plaintiff. The defendant disputed the title of the State of Punjab and that of the plaintiff. Civil litigation ensued between the parties. Both the parties filed their respective suits, which were decided by the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Dasuya on 13.8.1986 in favour of Tilak Raj-plaintiff and so also the appeals. Inspite of the same, the defendant did not allow the plaintiff to use the property shown with green colour in the site plan. Left with no other option, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In pursuance of it, the defendant was ordered to be detained in civil prison. The defendant was released after he complied with the decree. A few days before the filing of the present suit, plaintiff raised boundary wall around major part of the property purchased by him. However, a part of the property was left by him for use as passage for ingress and egress to his godown and court-yard. This property was shown in red colour in the site plan and marked by letters ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’. It was the exclusive property belonging to the plaintiff which was purchased by him way-back on 4.8.1987 from the Tehsildar Sales-cum-Managing Officer, Dasuya. However, the defendant threw fire-wood in the suit property but the same was removed by the plaintiff and his son. The defendant again threatened to throw/place fire-wood in the plot in suit with a malafide intention so as to block the passage of the plaintiff to his godown and court-yard. Though, the Regular Second Appeal No. 5288 of 2003 -3- plaintiff requested the defendant to admit his claim but the latter did not yield. Accordingly, suit was filed by Tilak Raj-plaintiff. In his written statement, the defendant pleaded that the suit property and other property purchased by the plaintiff was not evacuee property but was under the ownership of Punjab Wakf Board. Suit property shown by letters ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ did not form part of khasra No. 184/2 and was neither owned by the plaintiff nor in his possession. In fact, it was under his own possession along with other land as tenant under Punjab Wakf Board. The appellants relied on the reports Ex. P.2 and P.3 submitted by the Local Commissioner to contend that 9 marlas of land at the spot formed part of khasra No. 184/2/2, while the remaining 2 marlas of land was part of khasra No. 184/2/1. The appellants were owners of all the 11 marlas and on the basis of conveyance deed dated 4.8.1987, and therefore, the deficiency of two marlas be made from khasra No. 184/2/1, which was in the possession of the defendant. The total area purchased by plaintiff-Tilak Raj, vide conveyance deed dated 4.8.1987, was 313 sq. yards and 6 sq. ft., which was equivalent to 10 marlas 3 sarsahis. If Tilak Raj-plaintiff is to be considered owner of 9 marlas situated in khasra No. 184/2/2 and 2 marlas in khasra No. 184/2/1, that would make him owner of 11 marlas and in the process he would come to own an area more than the one allotted to him. Even otherwise, the appellants could not rely upon the report of the Local Commissioner so as to make up the deficiency in the land purchased by their predecessor-in-interest, i.e. Tilak Raj- Regular Second Appeal No. 5288 of 2003 -4- plaintiff. The plaintiff had earlier filed a suit against the defendant, which came to be decreed in his favour. That was in respect of 9 marlas of land situated in khasra No. 184/2/ min. In that civil suit, the plaintiff did not mention anywhere about the 2 marlas of land of which he has now filed the present suit and situated in khasra No. 184/2/1 or that the said piece of land was also subject matter of the conveyance deed dated 4.8.1987. The earlier suits, which were filed by the plaintiff and the defendant against each other, came to be decided on 13.8.1986. It appears that while obtaining conveyance deed dated 4.8.1987 in his favour, Tilak Raj- plaintiff managed to include an imaginary area in the said deed so as to start another round of litigation with the defendant. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned lower Courts were against the evidence on the record. These findings did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. No case is made out for disturbing them. No such substantial question of law, as claimed by the appellants, arises for determination in the present case. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 27, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO