RSA-471-1995 ( IN T 102
B.D. Trivedi (sin
Laxmi Devi (sinc CORAM : HON Present: Mr. Mr. for t
Resp *** AMARINDER S 1. The judgment and de the suit for posse dated 26.10.1994 preferred by the passed by the lea 2. For their status befor 3. Succ seeking possessio Distt. Ambala (h grandmother Sm 1995 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA RSA Res Pro Upl di (since deceased) through LRs Versus
i (since deceased) through LRs and an HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate, Mr. Arjun Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the appellant.
Respondents proceeded against ex p ***

DER SINGH GREWAL, J. The plaintiff is the appellant bef nd decree dated 29.03.1991 passed by r possession filed by the plaintiff-appe 0.1994 passed by the learned 1stAppe by the appellant-plaintiff against the the learned trial Court, has also been d For the sake of convenience, the par before the trial court. Succinctly, the facts of the case are ssession of a House bearing No.437, W ala (hereinafter referred to as the sui er Smt. Dasondha Devi was initially - PUNJAB AND HARYANA
DIGARH
RSA No.471 of 1995 (O&M) Reserved on: 29.04.2026
Pronounced on:07.05.2026 Uploaded on:08.05.2026
... Appella and another ...Responden MARINDER SINGH GREWAL cate, ex parte.
nt before this Court, challenging t sed by the learned trial Court dismissi appellant and the judgment and decr Appellate Court vide which the appe nst the aforesaid judgment and decr been dismissed. the parties shall be referred to in terms se are that the plaintiff filed the suit f 7, Ward No. 2, Dhobi Mohalla, Kal suit property) on the ground that h itially the owner of the said house a ppellant
ondents
ging the smissing d decree e appeal d decree terms of e suit for la, Kalka that his ouse and PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.08 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-471-1995 ( after her death, i and the suit prop father of the pl defendant No.1 v suit. The plaintif the same remaine and after his deat that the suit prop defendants have of the defendant plaintiff, suit for 4. Upo counsel and cont that the suit prop sold to defendant of the property possession of wh attached with the site plan sanctio purchased from t alleged that the dated 21.02.1966 plaintiff or was oversight. It was defendants, they 1995 (O&M) -2- eath, it was mutated in the name of th it property along with other property the plaintiff, who sold the property 1 vide sale deed 21.02.1966, which laintiff alleged that the suit house was emained under the ownership and poss is death, it remained with the plaintiff it property adjoins other property No have illegally and unauthorizedly occ endants to hand over the possession uit for possession for the property bear Upon issuance of summons, the d d contested the suit by filing a written it property alongwith other property endant No.1 vide registered sale deed perty was also attached with the sa of whole property was delivered to ith the sale deed. After purchasing the anctioned in March, 1966 and const from the father of the plaintiff (i.e. th t the absence of the specification of 2.1966 was either on account of fraud r was a bona fide mistake, which mi t was also pleaded that even if the pl , they have become owner of the s - e of the plaintiff in the municipal reco perty Nos.444-449 was inherited by t roperty bearing houses No.444-449 , which is subject matter of dispute in t se was never sold to defendant No.1 d possession of the father of the plaint laintiff himself. It is pertinent to menti Nos.444-449 and it was alleged th ly occupied the suit property. On refu ssion of the property in dispute to t y bearing house No.437 was filed. the defendants appeared through th ritten statement, wherein it was averr perty bearing house Nos.444-449 we deed dated 21.02.1966 and the site pl the sale deed in question and that t d to defendant No.1 as per the site pl g the same, defendant No.1 also got h constructed his house on the prope (i.e. the suit house). Defendants furth on of the suit property in the sale de f fraudulent intention of the father of t ich might have occurred on account the plaintiff does not admit claim of the said property by way of adver al record d by the 449 to te in the and plaintiff mention ged that n refusal te to the their s averred 49 were site plan that the site plan o got his property s further ale deed er of the count of im of the adverse PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.08 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-471-1995 ( possession as th more than 12 yea and his father. 5. On t seven issues inc evidence produc plaintiff and the of the learned tr Hence, the regula 6. Lear judgments and de facts on record a never sold to def by the father of and forcibly occu the suit and ther sale of the suit p the father of the a sale deed, it rem absent in Ex.P4. mutually inconsi justify the non- Ex.D2/1. A per respondents reve a settled principl 1995 (O&M) -3- as they have been in continuous po 12 years and the same was in knowled On the basis of pleadings, learned t es including relief. On appreciation roduced before it, the learned trial d the appeal preferred by the plaintif ned trial Court was also dismissed b regular second appeal. Learned counsel for the appella and decrees passed by the learned Co cord and are liable to be set aside. It w to defendant No.1 vide registered sale er of the appellant-plaintiff and resp ly occupied the suit property about 2 d there was no recital in the sale dee suit property to respondent No.1-def f the appellant–plaintiff had committe it remains unexplained as to why the P4. Furthermore, the respondents nconsistent pleas of fraud and bona -mentioning of the suit property, i. A perusal of the site plans Exs.D1 ts reveals that none of them makes any rinciple of law that where a document - ous possession of the said property f nowledge of the public at large, plaint rned trial Court had framed as many iation of oral as well as documenta rial Court dismissed the suit of t laintiff against the judgment and decr issed by the learned 1stAppellate Cou appellant-plaintiff contended that ed Courts below are contrary to law a de. It was argued that the suit house w ed sale deed dated 21.02.1966 (Ex.D2 respondents-defendants have illega out 2-2½ years prior to the institution ale deed mentioned above regarding t defendant No.1. Even assuming th mitted any fraud in the execution of t hy the description of the suit property ndents-defendants could not have tak d bona fide mistake simultaneously erty, i.e. House No. 437, in the sale de xs.D1, D3 and D4 produced by t es any reference to the suit property. It ument has been reduced into writing a perty for plaintiff many as mentary it of the d decree te Court. the law and ouse was Ex.D2/1) illegally tution of rding the ing that on of the operty is ve taken ously to sale deed by the erty. It is iting and PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.08 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-471-1995 ( its terms are clea In such circumsta in reversing the w holding that the the boundaries o plan Ex.D3. The evidence on reco of the property w described in the s by the father of DW5, husband o No.1-defendant N plaintiff; nor Ex. President, M.C., 7. It w in declaring the r the basis of adve simultaneously o adverse possessio inconsistent, mut support of his judgments passe others passed in the Hon’ble Supr others 2023 INS 1995 (O&M) -4- re clear and unambiguous, the same m cumstances, the learned 1st Appellate g the well-reasoned findings of the le at the learned trial Court had misconst aries of the property as depicted in th 3. The learned 1st Appellate Court has n record in concluding that, since a s erty was appended to the sale deed in the sale deed, they ought to be treate er of the appellant-plaintiff to respon band of respondent No.1-defendant No dant No.1 also purchased house No. or Ex.P4 i.e. letter dated 21.03.1966 M.C., Kalka talks about house No.437 It was further contended that both th g the respondent No.1-defendant No.1 f adverse possession. The defendants usly on the strength of the sale dee ssession from the same date i.e. 21.02. t, mutually destructive, and contrary t f his contention, learned counsel fo passed by the Delhi High Court in sed in CS(OS) No.250/2020 on 08.08 e Supreme Court in Government of K INSC 693. - me must prevail over any oral evidenc ellate Court has committed a grave err the learned trial Court on issue No.1 isconstrued the matter in not consideri d in the sale deed Ex.D2/1 and the s rt has misdirected itself and misread t ce a site plan describing the boundar deed and the said boundaries have be e treated as constituting the property so respondent No.1-defendant No.1. Ev ant No.1 nowhere stated that responde se No.437 from father of the appella .1966 written by defendant No.1 to t o.437. both the learned Courts below have err t No.1 as owner of the suit property ndants cannot, in law, claim ownersh le deed Ex.D2/1 as well as by way 21.02.1966, as these pleas are inheren trary to the settled principles of law. sel for the appellant relied upon t rt in Anu Gupta Vs. Vijay Gupta a 08.08.2022 and the judgment passed of Kerala and another Vs. Joseph a vidence. ave error 1 by nsidering the site sread the undaries ave been erty sold Even spondent ppellant- .1 to the ave erred perty on wnership way of herently law. In pon the ta and assed by ph and PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.08 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-471-1995 ( 8. Duri legal representati 25.07.2024 passe put in appearanc proceeded agains 9. I ha paper book as we 10. At t appellant-plaintif defendant No.1 and there was no Even the site p defendants nowh deed Ex.D2/1 re sold vide aforesa Nort Sout East Wes 11. Furt description in the plan Ex.P9 produ shows that in the common street. 1995 (O&M) -5- During the pendency of the instant sentatives of respondents have been b passed in CM No.7298-C of 2024. earance on behalf of legal representati against ex parte vide order dated 18.02 I have heard learned counsel for as well as the records of the case with At the very outset, it has been argu laintiff that the suit property i.e. 1 by his father vide registered sale was no recital in the sale deed regard site plans (Ex.D3, Ex.D1, Ex.D4) nowhere mention about the suit pro 2/1 reveals that property with follow foresaid sale deed:- North: House of Kanti Kumar of Gainda Mal Bhoja M South: Common Street East : Dhobi Mohalla Gali West: House of Hazara Singh Furthermore, a perusal of site in the sale deed is identical with site produced on record by the plaintiff w in the North existed flat/shop, Jain M treet. Meaning thereby, the disputed - stant appeal, respondents have died a been brought on record vide order dat 2024. However, despite service, no o sentatives of respondents and they we 18.02.2026 passed by this Court. for the appellant and have perused t se with his able assistance. n argued by the learned counsel for t i.e. house No.437 was never sold sale deed dated 21.02.1966 (Ex.D2 regarding the sale of the said proper D4) produced by the responden it property. However, a perusal of sa following boundaries was sought to umar Gupta etc., Jain Mandir and hou hoja Mal. Singh site plan Ex.D3 clearly shows th th site plan Ex.D3. Even perusal of s ntiff with respect to suit property clea Jain Mandir and in the South existed sputed property was made a part of t died and er dated , no one hey were used the l for the sold to D2/1) property. ondents- l of sale ht to be nd house ws that al of site y clearly existed a f the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.08 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-471-1995 ( sale deed, thou specifically ment 12. Ther property has bee except the docum secondary eviden that when a piece circumferences s the boundaries w must prevail as identity of the pro have recourse to the purpose of ga the suit propert description of bo to be sold by fath 1st Appellate Cou to prove his owne 13. Furt that the defence dated 21.02.1966 self-contradictory judgments in the Gupta (supra) distinguishable 1995 (O&M) -6- though number of the said prope y mentioned therein. There is no dispute to the settled l been reduced to the form of a doc document itself, or secondary evidenc evidence is admissible as per law. a piece of land is sold with definite bou nces surrounding the sale that a small ries was intended to be sold, the rule ail as against the measurements or the property. In the eventuality of such rse to extrinsic evidence and the evid e of gathering the real intention. In th roperty has not been specifically m of boundaries makes it crystal clear t by father of the plaintiff vide sale dee e Court has rightly held that the appe s ownership qua the suit property. Furthermore, the argument raised by fence of being owner of the suit prop 2.1966 Ex.D2/1 and the plea of advers dictory, self-destructive and impermiss in the cases of Government of Kera pra) relied upon by learned coun on facts of the present case. In t - property i.e. house No.437 was n ttled law that where disposition of a document no evidence shall be giv vidence of its contents in cases in whi law. But it is also established princip ite boundaries, unless it is clear from t smaller extent than what is covered e rule of interpretation is that boundar or any discrepancy with respect of such a dispute, it is also permissible e evidence of user by acts of parties f In the case in hand, though number cally mentioned in the sale deed b clear that the suit property was intend le deed Ex.D2/1. Therefore, the learn e appellant-plaintiff has miserably fail ised by learned counsel for the appella it property by way of alleged sale de adverse possession from the same date ermissible in law has also no merit. T Kerala and another (supra) and A counsel for the appellant are al In the case of Anu Gupta (supra), t was not n of any be given in which principle rom the vered by undaries spect to issible to arties for umber of eed but intended e learned ly failed appellant ale deed e date is erit. The Anu are also pra), the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.08 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-471-1995 ( claim qua posses Transfer of Prope agreement and c possession unde turned into hosti never available another (supra), to be claimed wa their hostile poss 14. At th Hon’ble Suprem Through Lrs, (20 “30 have defe bein had 1976 simu nece wife open hand App 1995 (O&M) -7- possession of the appellant therein wa f Property Act, 1882 and thus, came in and continued to remain in possessio under the agreement was only per hostile possession to the real owner, t ilable to him. Similarly in the case upra), the land on which title by way ed was a government land and the re e possession to that of true owner i.e. t At this juncture, it is imperative to r upreme Court in Narasamma and O s, (2020) 15 SCC 218 wherein it has 30. We may also note that on the have sought to take a plea of bar defendant claiming that possession c being filed in 1989. Yet at the sam had title on the basis of these very 1976 and the plea of adverse simultaneously hold. On the failure necessary to prove as to from whi wife of the defendant amount to a open and continuous manner. We f hand the appellants claimed that t Appellant 1 herein, had title to th - ein was founded on Section 53-A of t ame into possession of the land under t ssession till date of the suit. Since t ly permissive possession, which nev wner, the plea of adverse possession w e case of Government of Kerala a y way of adverse possession was soug the respondents therein could not pro er i.e. the State. ve to refer to the judgment passed by t nd Others vs. A. Krishnappa (Dea it has been held as under:- n the one hand, the appellants here bar of limitation vis-à-vis the origin ion came to them in 1976, with the s same time, it is claimed that the w ery documents. The claim of title fro erse possession from 1976 cann lure to establish the plea of title, it w which date did the possession of t to a hostile possession in a peacef We fail to appreciate how, on the o at the wife of the original defenda to the property in 1976 but on th A of the nder the ince the ch never sion was la and s sought ot prove ed by the (Dead) herein riginal the suit he wife le from cannot , it was of the aceful, the one endant, n their PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.08 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-471-1995 ( failu poss XXX 35. be m whe Mun 36. prov is st tran the out. part XXX 38. Rai deal poss had and real 15. Ther of law that the cl cannot simultan 1995 (O&M) -8- failure to establish title, in the possession should be recognised fro XXXX XXX 35. In order to establish adverse po be made into the starting point of s when the recorded owner got disp Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma, 36. In the facts of the present ca proved. The possession of Smt Nara is stated to be on account of cons transaction did not fructify into a s the date when such possession beco out. Thus, the plea of adverse pos particulars. XXXX XXX 38. We may also note another judic Rai v. Deo Kumar Rai (2019) 13 SC aling with a similar factual mat possession given by the owner and t had become adverse. It was held th and proved as to when possession real owner to lose title 12 years hen There is no hesitation to this Court i he claim of title and the plea of adve ultaneously hold. However, the - the alternative, the plea of adver d from the very date. XXXX XXXX se possession an inquiry is required of such adverse possession and, th dispossessed would be crucial. [P ma, (2007) 6 SCC 59] t case, this fact has not at all be Narasamma, the wife of the defenda consideration paid. Assuming that t a sale deed for whatever reason, s becomes adverse would have to be possession is lacking in all mater XXXX XXXX udicial pronouncement in Ram Nagi 3 SCC 324 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 7 matrix i.e. where there is permiss and the defendant claims that the sa ld that it has to be specifically plead sion becomes adverse in order for t hence from that time. ourt in accepting the settled propositi f adverse possession from the same da , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in t dverse ired to d, thus, . [P.T. ll been endant, hat the n, still be set aterial Nagina iv) 722 missive e same leaded for the oposition ame date t in the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.08 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-471-1995 ( Narasamma’s ca plea of title, the from which date open and continu the instant case, able to prove the plaintiff vide leg construction rais from 21.02.1967 adverse to the respondent No.1 aforesaid constru From the said d present suit was Either way, the a 16. In v Pankajakshi (De and others (201 (2019) 17 SCC Singh (dead) thr law are not requi High Court whos Punjab Courts Ac 17. As judgment and dec 1995 (O&M) -9- case (supra) has categorically held the person claiming adverse possess h date did the possession amount to a ontinuous manner. Applying the said case, even if it is assumed that the resp their title based on the sale deed Ex de legal notice dated 21.02.1967 Ex.D n raised over the suit property by th 2.1967, the possession of the resp the father of the plaintiff. The s t No.1-defendant No.1 as Ex.DW3/1. onstruction, no suit for possession w said date of 21.02.1967, 12 years c was filed on 09.11.1982 i.e. after , the appellant-plaintiff has no title ove In view of the judgments passed b i (Dead) through Legal Represent (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur V CC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dea ) through LRs and others (2023) S t required to be framed in second appe t whose jurisdiction is circumscribed urts Act, 1918. As an upshot, this Court finds no nd decree dated 26.10.1994 passed by - ly held that on the failure to establish t possession has necessarily to prove as nt to a hostile possession in a peacef he said principle to the factual matrix he respondents-defendants have not be eed Ex.D2/1, still father of the appella 7 Ex.DW5/2 had objected to the illeg by the respondents-defendants. Th e respondents-defendants had becom The said notice was duly replied 3/1. Despite being in knowledge of t sion was filed by father of the plainti ears completed on 20.02.1979 and t after the statutory period of 12 yea itle over the suit property. ssed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court sentatives and others Vs. Chandri aur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and othe (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurchar 23) SCC Online SC 875, questions d appeal before the Punjab and Harya ribed by provisions of Section 41 of t nds no illegality and perversity in t sed by the learned 1st Appellate Court blish the ove as to peaceful, atrix of not been ppellant- e illegal s. Thus, become plied by of the plaintiff. and the 2 years. Court in ndrika others charan stions of Haryana 41 of the y in the Court as PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.08 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-471-1995 ( and the finding r and decree dated second appeal is 18. Pend May 07, 2026 Pankaj* 1995 (O&M) -10 ding rendered by the learned trial Co dated 29.03.1991 and the same are eal is dismissed. Pending misc. application, if any, als (AM Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 10- rial Court on issue No.2 vide judgme are upheld. Consequently, the regu ny, also stands disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL JUDGE ned : Yes/No : Yes/No udgment e regular EWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.08 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh