RSA No.3230 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3230 of 2006. Decided on: December 11, 2009. Brahmi Devi and others .. Appellants VERSUS Pritam Singh and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.R.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.T.P.Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. M.M.S. BEDI, J. This is defendants' appeal against the judgment of lower appellate Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents for possession of land comprised in Khasra No.8//8/2(0-8), situated ...1 RSA No.3230 of 2006 in the village Thali, as per he jamabandi for the year 1995-96, reversing the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2001, passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Ropar. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.09.2001, had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs- respondents for possession of the land in dispute whereas the lower appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree and passed a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. Brief facts, relevant for the adjudication of the present second appeal, are that plaintiff-respondent No.1, along with proforma defendants-respondents claimed that the are joint owners of the suit property. Defendant Nos.1 & 2, did not have any title or interest in the suit property. They in connivance with the revenue Patwari had got entered their names in the jamabandi in the cultivation column illegally. On the basis of the wrong entries, the defendants-appellants posed threat to raise construction on the suit property forcibly, giving cause of action to the plaintiff-respondent to file a suit for possession. The defendants-appellants filed a joint written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff. They claimed that they are owners of the suit property and had been using the property since 1940 as owners. They claimed that they had been in possession since the time Lal Chand who was the original owner of the property sold his estate to the defendants-appellant for consideration through a registered sale deed dated 15.06.1940, registered on 17.06.1940. Besides claiming title on the basis of sale ...2 RSA No.3230 of 2006 deed dated 15.06.1940, they also claimed their right to remain in possession on the basis of their adverse possession. The trial Court had framed the following issues: - 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession as owner with consequential relief of permanent injunction? OPP 2. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD. 3. Whether the suit as framed is not competent? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not properly value for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 5. Whether the defendants No.1 and 2 are the owners of the suit property as prayed for? OPD. 6. Relief. Three additional issues were framed by the appellate Court as the appellants had raised counterclaim to seek a declaration that they are absolute owners of the property by virtue of registered sale deed executed by the father of the appellant and Hari Ram. ...3 RSA No.3230 of 2006 The suit of the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed by giving finding on issue Nos.1 to 6, mentioned hereinabove, holding that the plaintiff-respondent along with proforma defendants had sold the entire property of every type in village Thali and Singhpura by way of sale deed EX.D1, as such, he cannot argue that plaintiff remained silent for more than 5 decades and did not claim possession. The defendants-appellants had become owners by way of adverse possession, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff- respondent was dismissed. An appeal was preferred and the lower appellate Court had framed the following three additional Issues:- 5A. Whether the defendants No.1 & 2/counter claimants are owners in possession of the property in dispute? OPD. 5B. Whether the defendants No.1and 2, are the absolute owners of the property by virtue of its purchase through sale deed dated 15.06.1940 registered on 17.06.1940, by the father of defendant No.1, and Hari Ram son of Lalu Ram who was brother of Nika Ram, father of defendant No.1, from Lal Chand? OPD. 5C. If Issue No.5-B, is not proved whether the defendants No.1 & 2, have become owners of the property by way of adverse possession? OPD. ...4 RSA No.3230 of 2006 The lower appellate Court asked for the report of trial Court on the additional issues, but the trial Court had again submitted a report on the additional issues, holding that by way of adverse possession, the defendants have become owners. In an appeal preferred by the plaintiff-respondent, the matter was referred back to the lower appellate Court with a direction that report of the trial Court should be considered along with the appeal on merits in accordance with law. Report was submitted by Shri D.S.Malwai, Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Ropar, on issue No.5C, that the defendants- appellants have become owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession, but their claim to have become owners on the basis of sale deed EX.D1, dated 15.06.1940, was rejected by the trial Court while decided issue No.5-B. The lower appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court in appeal filed by the plaintiffs- respondents. The lower appellate Court has carefully considered the findings of the trial Court and considered the claim of the plaintiff for possession on the basis of his ownership, in context to the sale deed dated 15.06.1940, registered on 17.06.1940, as well as the claim of the defendants-appellants for adverse possession w.e.f., 1940. Shri R.L.Sharma, learned counsel for the defendants-appellants has argued that the lower appellate Court has acted illegally and with perversity while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession of the suit land. He has submitted that the original owners of the land Lal Chand son of Mulla, the ...5 RSA No.3230 of 2006 predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff Pritam Singh and proforma defendant Nos.3 to 9, had sold their entire land by way of sale deed dated 15.06.1940, registered on 17.06.1940, to the defendants- appellants Hari Ram son of Lallu, defendant No.2 and Nikka son of Tara, father of defendant No.1. He has taken me through the joint sale deed EX.D1, and its translation to contend that by virtue of said document executed in the year 1940, the original owners have sold the land in dispute in favour of Hari Ram, defendant No.2, now represented through LRs. In the said sale deed, there is no reference to Khasra No.8//8/2(0-8), but learned counsel submitted that the lines in the sale Deed to the effect that in village Thali and Singhpura, property of the vendor would vest in vendees as owners as the intention of the vendor has to be seen from the contents of the document. He placed reliance on AIR 1986 Kerala 236, Chumar Vs.Narayanan Nair, in support of his contention that where on construction of a document transferring title to hold a property, it is clear that the intention of the parties was to transfer a parcel of the land within well defined boundaries, any erroneous statement of survey number or omission to state it should be rejected as falsa demonstratis. In the said case the controversy before the trial Court was whether the property mentioned in the title deed of the plaint was included in the title deed of the defendant and whether it forms part of the property owned by the plaintiff. The defendant had also admitted in the said case that the plaint property is included in the ...6 RSA No.3230 of 2006 title deed and that he was in possession of the same as part of his holding. It was in that context the Kerala High Court had made an observation pertaining to the intention of the parties in matter of transfer of parcel of land. In the present case, the subject matter of the property sold vide EX.D1, has been clearly described by mentioning specific Khasra, Khatauni and Khewat numbers, clearly depicting the areas and the shares. A presumption of truth is attached to the registered sale deed dated 15.06.1940. While interpreting a document like registered sale deed, a presumption can be drawn that a khasra number which has specifically been omitted from the details of the property forming subject matter of the sale deed would be deemed to have been included in the other khasra numbers merely on the basis of the contents in the later part of the document that the seller will not have any property in village Thali and Singhpura. There is no rule of interpretation of the contents of a document that a particular thing which has been excluded expressly could be deemed to have been included merely on the basis of the general terms in the subsequent part of the document. All contents of the document have to be read in harmony. There is a concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below that on the basis of the sale deed EX.D1, the defendants-appellants did not acquire any title by implication. Considering the principle of interpretation of document, “the word specifically omitted cannot be included by general terms by implication. I do not find any force in the arguments ...7 RSA No.3230 of 2006 of counsel for appellant. The next contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the lower appellate Court has acted illegally in arriving at a conclusion that the defendants have not become owners by way of adverse possession. In this context, the lower appellate Court has taken into consideration the document EX.D7, jamabandi for the year 1960-61, EX.D6, Jamabandi for the year 1975-76, EX.D5 jamabandi for the year 1980-81, EX.D4, jamabandi for the year 1985-86, EX.D3, jamabandi for the year 1990-91 and observed that in all these jamabandis, in the column of ownership, names of Pritam Singh and others have been reflected as co-owners of the land comprised in Khasra No.8//8/2(0-8), but in the column of cultivation Radha Ram, Tara Chand and Hari Ram stand recorded as Gair Marusi. In the jamabandi EX.D8, for the year 1995-96, in column No.9, the defendant has been shown as Bila Lagan Bewja Bai. The possession of Lal Chand is reflected as per Khatauni Paimaish in an area (0-8) marla which coincide with the present khasra No.13/6. The defendants-appellants have not been able to establish their adverse possession by producing evidence to establish that their possession was hostile to the real owner and in denial to the title of true owner. It is settled principle of law that a permissive possession will not ripen into title by way of adverse possession. The lower appellate Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the defendants-appellants have not been able to ...8 RSA No.3230 of 2006 establish their ownership on the basis of title deed EX.D1, or on the basis of adverse possession. The plea of limitation raised by the appellant before the lower appellate Court has been carefully dealt with by the said Court in context to Section 65 of the Limitation Act, observing that a true owner of the land can file a suit for possession and there is no limitation for filing suit unless the person in possession is able to prove his title on the basis of adverse possession. There is, thus, no infirmity in the order passed by the lower appellate Court in decreeing the suit for possession and permanent injunction of plaintiff-respondent. No substantial question of law arises warranting interference in the concurrent finding of fact regarding the absence of title of the defendants-appellants on the basis of sale deed EX.D1, and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE December 11, 2009. rka ...9