IN THE HI 114 Gian Kaur dec Harmesh Sing Gian Kaur dec Harmesh Sing CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, CM-3815-C-20 r/w Section 15 which is supp exceptions and MAIN CASE common orde E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA deceased through her LRs Vs. Singh *** deceased through her LRs Vs. Singh HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. Aditya Dassaur, Advoca for the appellant. *** PTA, J. 2020 IN RSA-1271-2020 This is an application und n 151 CPC for condonation of delay After going through the supported by affidavit, the same s and delay of 77days in filing the pr Both the above appeals a order as the facts, issues and pa D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.02.2025 RSA-1271-2020 (O&M) ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) RSA-1129-2020 (O&M) ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA vocate under Section 5 of Limitation Act elay of 77 days in filing the appeal. the contents of the application, me is allowed subject to all just e present appeal is condoned. ls are being disposed of by this d parties involved in both the 15 ct on, ust SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document appeals are id the parties aga 2. the concurren whereby her Kaur wd/o P permanent inj herein, has be 3. against the co whereby the Harmesh Singh permanent inj decreed by bo Suit No.CS/35 restraining th respondent fr interfering int land. The said and decree d dated 01.02.2 the said judgm Kapurthala vi re identical. Both the appeals eman s against each other in respect of th RSA-1271-2020 is filed by t rrent judgments and decrees of er suit bearing CS No.259/2014 da o Parkash Singh vs. Harmesh Si njunction against the defendant s been dismissed by both the Courts RSA-1129-2020 is filed b e concurrentjudgments and decrees the Civil Suit No.CS/358/2014 d Singh s/o S. Ujjagar Singh vs. Gian K t injunction filed byHarmesh Singh y both the Courts below.The respon S/358/2014 dated 08.07.2014 see g the appellant from forcibly and t from the suit land and also res into the peaceful possession of th said suit was decreed by the learne e dated 12.12.2017. The appeal 02.2018 filed by the appellant here dgment and decree was dismissed b a vide judgment and decree da manate from cross-suits filed by f the same suit land. by the plaintiff-Gian Kauragainst of the learned Courts below 4 dated 27.05.2014titled as Gian Singh s/o Ujjagar Singh, for ant - Harmesh Singh/respondent urts below. d by the defendant-Gian Kaur rees of the learned Courts below 4 dated 08.07.2014 titled as an Kaur wd/o Parkash Singh , for gh/respondent herein, has been spondent had filed the said Civil seeking permanent injunction and illegally dispossessing the restraining the appellant from of the respondent over the suit arned trial Court vide judgment eal bearing Civil Appeal No.44 herein namely Gian Kaur against sed by the learned District Judge, dated 06.08.2019. The said 15 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document judgments ha way of connec 4. from, and evi which was file 5. plaintiff - Gia appellant is th in the head n Phagwara, Dis That earlier th 11 and Gian K Singh ss/o Par 1/3rd share o Kuldeep Singh village Fatehg share measur 1K-4M compr Kuldeep Sing no.277/1/2 ow share of land no.55/82 (ow (registered on s have been challenged by the app nected RSA-1129-2020. For the sake of convenienc evidence is being referred to as p filed prior in time. Brief facts of the case as Gian Kaurin CS No. 259/2014 dat is the joint owner and in joint posse ad note of the plaint and situated , District Kapurthala, as per jamab er the Khasra no.407/110/2-16 was an Kaur wd/o Parkash Singh, Ajaib S Parkash Singh were the joint owne re of Khasra no.110/7-11. Gian Ka ingh s/o Parkash Singh, Malkiat Sing tehgarh, Tehsil Phagwara, District K asuring 2K-8M i.e. 12 marlas being mprised in Khasra No.277/1/1/1 Singh); and land measuring 1K 2 owned by Malkit Singh s/o Mehr land measuring 2K-16M comprised (owned by Gian Kaur) vide s d on 19.11.2003) but the possess appellant before this Court by ience, the facts are being drawn as pertaining to RSA-1271-2020 e as set out by the appellant/ dated 27.05.2014 are that the ossession of suit land as detailed ated in village Fatehgarh, Tehsil mabandi for the year 2009-10. was combined Khasra no.110/7- ib Singh, Satnam Singh, Kuldeep wners and in joint possession of n Kaur wd/o Parkash Singh and Singh s/o Mehra, all residents of ict Kapurthala sold their part of eing ½ share of land measuring /1/1-4(owned by Gian Kaur & 1K-4M comprised in khasra ehra; and 12 land being 12/56 rised in khasra No.110/3 khata e sale deeddated 18.11.2003 ssession to the defendant was 15 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document delivered fro respondent is 'sale deed'. Th The responde question own illegally interfe the same for succeeds in do substantial inj the requests a of the appella forcibly dispos and the respo Hence, the pre 6. resisted the s appellant is correct that v Singh s/o Par Malkiat Singh Marlas out of respondent pu It is denied tha from Khasra no.277/1/1/1-4, 2 is not in possession of the suit lan '. Theappellant is a widowed lady ndent is threatening to take forcib wned and possessed by the appell terfere in the lawful/peaceful poss for which he has no legal right a in doing so, then the appellant will s l injury, which cannot be compens sts and persuasions made to the re ellant and to desist from illegally i ispossessing the appellant from the spondent plainly refused to accept e present suit. Upon notice, the defendan he suit by filing written statement is not joint owner or in joint poss at vide 'sale deed' dated 18.11.20 Parkash Singh sold 12 marlas out ngh sold 1K-4M out of Khasra no.27 t of 2K-16M bearing khasra no.11 purchased 48 marlas land vide 's d that the possession was delivered 4, 277/1/2/1-4. As such the it land on the basis of registered lady of more than 80 years old. rcible possession of the land in pellant, and also threatening to possession of the appellant over ht and in case the respondent ill suffer an irreparable loss and pensated in terms of money. All respondent to admit the claim lly interfering and/or otherwise the suit land fell on deaf ears ept the requests of the plaintiff. ndant-respondent appeared and ent inter alia pleading that the possession of the suit land. It is 1.2003, Gian Kaur and Kuldeep out of Khasra no.277/1/1/1-4, o.277/1/2 and Gian Kaur sold 12 o.110/3 to the defendant. The e 'sale deed' dated 18.11.2003. red from Khasra no.277/1/1/1-4 15 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document and 277/1/2/1 suit land on th execution of no.110/3 and vendors induc 48 marlas in handover the assurance, it w was transferr no.110/3 as p possession of were in posse possession of number. It is a of khasra no.1 at the time wh facts, it is clea land. Rather t suit property motive to har denied and pr /2/1-4. It is denied that the respon n the basis of the 'sale deed'. It is s of sale deed the appellant sold and remaining from other khasr duced the respondent to believe th in Khasra no.277/1/1/1-4, 277/1 the possession in these two khasr , it was so scribed in the 'sale dee ferred from khasra no.277/1/1/1 as per the shares of the vendors. n of the land sold by him, however K ossession of only 12 marlas in 27 n of 12 marlas was also given by Gia t is also pertinent to mention here no.110/3, Gian Kaur was left with n e when she executed the 'sale deed clear that the respondent is joint ow er the appellant has got no right o rty and the present suit has been f harass the defendant. The other d prayer for dismissal of the suit wa spondent is not in possession of t is submitted that at the time of sold 12 marlas out of khasra hasra numbers. However, the ve that they are in possession of 77/1/2/1-4 and represented to hasra numbers and as per their deed'. However, the ownership 1/1-4, 277/1/2/1-4 and khasra ors. Malkiat Singh delivered the ver Kuldeep Singh and Gian Kaur 277/1/1 and 277/1/2, so the y Gian Kaur from the suit khasra ere that by selling 12 marlas out ith no share in khasra no. 110/3 deed'. So from the above stated t owner in possession of the suit ht or interest of any kind in the en filed simply with the ulterior her contents of the plaint were was made. 15 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7. averments ma in the plaint. 8. issues were 27.01.2015: - 9. documentary decided issue plaintiff/appel pressed; ther judgment and 01.02.2018 fil District Judge, Hence, presen Replication was filed by s made in the written statement an nt. On the basis of pleading re framed by the learned tria - “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitl as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff 3. Whether the plaintiff has no standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not clean hands and has suppressed Court? OPD 5. Relief.” On the basis of the ary evidence adduced by the part sue No.1 in favour of the defendant ppellant; and issues No.2 to 4 w thereby dismissing the suit of and decree dated 12.12.2017. Th filed by the appellant was also dge, Kapurthala vide judgment an esent RSA 1271 of 2020 by the plain by the appellant denying the t and reiterating the ones made dings of the parties, following trial Court vide order dated entitled to permanent injunction intiff is not maintainable? OPD s no cause of action and locus OPD not approached the Court with ssed the material facts from the e pleadings, andthe oral and parties, the learned trial Court dant/respondent and against the 4 were disposed of not being of the plaintiff/appellant vide . The Civil appeal no. 45 dated also dismissed by the learned t and decree dated 06.08.2019. laintiff-Gian Kaur. 15 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10. No.CS/358/20 issues were fra 11. documentary decided issue defendant/app defendant/app suit was decre vide judgment 1.2.2018 filed Kapurthala vid RSA 1129 of 20 12. vehemently su Similarly, in RSA 1129 o /2014 dated 08.07.2014 filed by e framed: – “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitle injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plainti present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has got standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not c hands and has suppressed the Hon’ble Court? OPD 5. Relief.” On the basis of the ple ary evidence adduced by the part sue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff /appellant; and issues no.2 to 4 /appellant and in favour of the p ecreed in favour of Harmesh Sing ent and decree dated 12.12.2017. filed by Gian Kaur was dismissed b a vide judgment and decree dated of 2020 by Gian Kaur. Learned counsel for t ly submits that there was a catego 9 of 2020, in the Civil Suit Harmesh Singh the following ntitled to the relief of permanent laintiff is not maintainable in the got no cause of action or locus OPD not come to the Court with clean the material facts from this pleadings, and the oral and parties, the learned trial Court tiff/respondent and against the o 4 were decided against the e plaintiff/respondent; and the Singh by the learned trial court 17. The Civil appeal no.44 dated d by the learned District Judge, ted 06.08.2019. Hence, present r the appellant Gian Kaur tegoric recital in the Sale Deed 15 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document dated 18.11.2 given from K Khasra No.11 submitted tha Courts below possession ha the appellant clearly mentio Khasra No.110 confer any tit attached to t attached regis it. The learned of witnesses e that possessio contended tha that the pres decrees be set 13. upon judgmen Devi” Law Fin are sacrosanc Law Finder Do 11.2003 to the effect that possess Khasra Nos.277/1/1 and 277/1 o.110/3 was never handed over that in view of the definite recital i low could not have relied upon the n had been transferred to the resp ant had brought on record the regis ntioned that no possession had bee .110. It is contended that KhasraGi y title upon the party and there to these documents. On the othe egistered Sale Deed which has pres rned Courts below have also failed es examined by the appellant who ssion in Khasra No.110 was never g that the appellant is still in poss present appeal be allowed and th e set aside. In support learned counse ment of the Hon’ble Supreme Cou Finder Doc ID # 263878to submit sanct. Ld. Counsel also relies upon r Doc ID # 37955, to submit that pr ssession to the respondent was 7/1/2 only; and possession of over to the respondent. It is ital in the Sale Deed, the learned the revenue record to hold that respondent. It is submitted that egistered Sale Deed in which it is been given to the respondent in raGirdawari and mutation do no ere is no presumption of truth other hand, the appellant has presumption of truth attached to iled to consider the testimonies ho have unequivocally deposed ver given to the respondent. It is ossession. As such, it is prayed the impugned judgments and nsel for the appellant has relied Court in “Ishwari Devi Vs. Sarla mit that recitals in the sale deed pon“Fateh Singh Vs. Het Ram” t presumption of truth attached 15 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document to revenue re would not be a 14. 15. perused the ca 16. owner in joint year 2009-10 appellantalong land measuri manner:- out of khasra and 12 Marla appellant, th Nos.277/1/1/1 regarding Kha kms away fro agreed betwe e record under Section 44 of the be applicable to Khasra Girdawaris. No other argument is made I have heard learned co e case file in great detail. The case of the appellant oint possession of suit land as reflec 10.Vide registered Sale Deed da long with Kuldeep Singh and Malk uring 2 kanal 8 marla/ 48 marlas to Half share (1 kanal 4 marla) of Kaur and Kuldeep Singh’s share) 1 kanal 4 marla in Khasra No.277/ 12/56thshare (2 kanal 16 marla Kaur’s share). To put it concisely, the app sra no. 277/1/1; 24 Marlas of land arlas of land out of khasra no. that the respondent received /1/1-4 and 277/1/2/1-4; and no p Khasra No.110/3 as the same was from the remaining suit land. It tween the parties that possession the Punjab Land Revenue Act, aris. ade on behalf of the appellant. counsel for the appellantand llant is that there she was joint eflected in the Jamabandi for the dated 18.11.2003 (Ex.P2) the Malkiat Singh sold her share of to Harmesh Singh, in following ) of Khasra No.277/1/1/-4 (Gian re); 277/1/2 (Malkiat Singh’s share); arla) in Khasra No.110/3 (Gian appellant sold 12 marlas of land land out of khasra no. 277/1/2; no. 110/3.It is the case of the ed possession only in Khasra no possession was handed over was situated at a distance of 3 . It is also stated to have been ssion of land sold in respect of 15 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 110/3 would b case, the appe 17. appellant. A p land was sold which was pa also no disp no.277/1/1/1 vendors.In reg reliance upon has been given the purchaser 277/1/1/1–4 a purchaser at th to the appella vendors had marlas in Kh handover the assurance, it w duly appointe Ujagar Singh D possession ag 277/1/2. How uld be given to the respondent afte ppellant hasrelied primarily upon th I find no merit whatsoev A perusal of the sale deed Ex.P-2 sold to the respondent for a salec s paid in entirety before the Sub R dispute that the ownership was 1/1-4, 277/1/2/1-4 and khasra no.1 regard to possession, Ld. Counsel pon the recital in the sale deed to given to the purchaser at the spot. aser by the owner as per the famil 4 and 277/1/2/1–4, which will at the time of partition.”However, pellant as it is the consistent case ad induced him to believe that th Khasra no.277/1/1/1-4, 277/1/ the possession in these two khasr , it was so scribed in the sale deed inted attorney of the respondent gh DW1, had deposed that it was w n against property bought was given owever, as the vendors could not after partition. In support of her on the recital in the Sale Deed. oever in the contention of the 2 clearly shows that 48 Marla aleconsideration of ₹1,35,000/– ub Registrar Phagwara. There is was transferred from khasra no.110/3 as per the shares of the nsel for the appellant is placing to the effect that “Possession pot.Possession has been given to family partition from Khasra no. will come to the share of the ver, the said recital is of no help case of the respondent thatthe at they are in possession of 48 /1/2/1-4 and represented to hasra numbers and as per their eed.It is for this reason that the ent namely Gurpal Singh son of as written in the Sale Deed that given in Khasra Nos.277/1/1 and not deliver the possession of 48 15 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document marla in Kha delivered the the suit prope possession of manner that t Khasra No.110 be illogical, as reason that p suit in 2014. 18. laid to rest by Admittedly, as the fard Jamab to be owner 110/3.What fi been sanction be owner in documentary been duly exe possession of 19. appellant upo Devi supra is Khasra Nos.277/1/1 and 277/1/ the possession of 12 marla in khas roperty; and Kuldeep Singh and Ma n of 36 marla in Khasra No.277/1/1 t the defendant became owner i .110/3. The argument on behalf of t l, as, Sale Deed is of the year 200 at possession of suit property rem 4. In any event, the said reci by the undisputed revenue record y, as per the Khasra Girdawari for t mabandi for the year 2014-15 (Ex.D ner in possession of entire suit at finally clinches the issue is that tioned in favour of the respondent r in possession of entire suit pr ary evidence it stands established o executed in favour of the responde n of the property, including the suit p The reliance placed by upon the judgment of the Hon’ble is misplaced as the same is distin /1/2 thus the appellant had hasra No.110/3 as well which is Malkiat Singh had delivered the /1/1 and 277/1/2. It was in this er in possession of 12 marla in f of the appellant also appears to 2003 and it would not stand to remains undelivered till filing of recital and testimony of DW1 is ord in favour of the respondent. for the year 2014-15 (Ex.D1) and (Ex.D3),the respondent is shown suit property including that in that even mutation (Ex.D2), has ent as per which he is shown to t property. As such, from the ed on file that the Sale Deed has ndent upon which he was put in suit property. y the learned counsel for the n’ble Supreme Court in Ishwari distinguishable on facts and law 15 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document inasmuch as Numbers sold possession. M the appellant with the land possession of the year 2014 favour of the of Sale Deed appellant. It is measures only entire sale co vendors. As s contrary to th to rely upon j Finder Doc ID revenue recor not be applica applicable to entirely distin inform this Co was only given as the ‘discrepancy’ therein was sold; whereas the issue in the Moreover, as per the Sale Deed (E ant in the Sale Deed (Ex.P2) that “ land being sold.”. At the risk of rep n of the respondent is duly reflected 014-15 (Ex.D1); and even mutation the respondentpursuant to the Sale eed 48 marla of land was sold by It is also admitted that land in Khas only 36 marla. It is also admitte le consideration of Rs.1,35,000/- As such, the case sought to be pu o the record. Learned counsel for th on judgment of this Court in “Fate c ID # 37955, to submit that presu ecord under Section 44 of the Punj plicable to Khasra Girdawaris. Howe to the facts and circumstances istinguishable. Learned counsel for s Court that if, at the time of execu iven in Khasra Nos.277/1/1 and 277 was in respect of the Khasra the present case is regarding ed (Ex.P2), it is the own recital of t “now we shall have no relation f repetition, it is reiterated that cted in the Khasra Girdawari for tion (Ex.D2) has been entered in Sale Deed. It is admitted by way d by the vendors, including the Khasra Nos.277/1/1 and 277/1/2 itted in the Sale Deed that the - was also received by the put forth by the appellant is or the appellant has also sought “Fateh Singh Vs. Het Ram” Law resumption of truth attached to unjab Land Revenue Act, would owever, the said judgment is not ces of the present case and is l for the appellant is unable to ecution of Sale Deed possession 277/1/2 then how, when and in 15 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document what manner reflected in th 20. judgment and nerwas the respondent put in posse n the revenue record and mutation. Relevant findings returned and decree dated 12.12.2017 are as “…A bare perusal of the docume shape of 'sale deed' dt. 18.11.200 described in detail in the head n sold by the plaintiff to the de mentioned in the same that the been given to the defendant out and khasra no. 277/1/2/1-4 b documentary evidence of the pla on record Ex.D1 i.e. the khasragi wherein the defendant is reflecte of the entire suit property inclu alleged by the plaintiff to hav defendant, in possession. Ex.D2 c the said fact categorically as the d owner in possession of the entir the plaintiff alleges that the suit to the defendant but the posses delivered to him. However, the ba without any oral or documenta same, holds no ground for the p defendant has brought on record evidence to proof his possession o light of the entire set of circum brought on record this issue goes and against the plaintiff.” ossession of khasra No.110/3 as ion. rned by learned trial Court vide re as under:- uments placed on record in the .2003 i.e. Ex.P2 evinces that land ad note of the plaint had been e defendant and it had been the possession at the spot had t out of khasra no. 277/1/1/1-4 4 but in order to rebut the e plaintiff, the defendant placed sragirdawari of the suit property lected to be owner in possession including the property which is have not been given to the D2 copy of intkal further reflects the defendant is shown to be the entire suit property. Apparently, suit property was although sold ossession of the same was not he bald statement of the plaintiff entary evidence to support the he plaintiff. On the contrary the cord both oral and documentary ion over the suit property. In the ircumstances and the evidence goes in favour of the defendant 15 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 21. Court vide jud ja fa Relevant findings returned judgment and decree dated 06.08.2 “11. Ld. Counsel for the appellant the possession of the property transferred or delivered to the res claim the possession of the suit admitted the execution of the sa vide which the appellant has tra proved on the file as Ex.P2, out and 277/1/2(1-4). It has been men the property has been sold from possession was shown to KhasraNo.277/1/1(1-4) and 277/ in Ex.D1 Khasra Girdawari th possession over the entire suit pro which is alleged by the plaintiff to defendant, which he has purcha been sanctioned in favour of the r Ex.D2, which is copy of mutatio jamabandi for the year 2014 possession of the respondent over as the factum regarding possess admitted by Jyoti attorney of the only share of 6 Marlas in Khasra N land was of Gian Kaur. Kuldeep which he has taken in exchange b family partition. Khasra No. 11 Khasra No.277/1/1 and 277/1/ Singh sold 12 Marlas of land to th the sale deed Ex.P2. Gian Kaur pla rned by learned first Appellate .08.2019 are as under:- llant has further contended that erty in dispute has never been e respondent, hence they cannot suit property. Both the parties he sale deed dated 18.11.2003, s transferred the land which is out of khasra Nos.277/1/1(1-4) mentioned in the sale deed that from three khasra numbers and to be delivered out of 277/1/2(1-4). It has been shown ri that the respondent is in it property including the property tiff to have not been given to the rchased and even mutation has the respondent as reflected from tation and Ex.D3 is the copy of 014-15, which also shows the over the suit property and as far ssession is concerned, it is also f the plaintiff that Gian Kaur has sra No.110 again said the entire deep Singh has got 14 Marlas, ge but there is no writing of that . 110 is situated 3 K.M from 7/1/2. Gian Kaur and Malkiat to the respondent. She admitted r plaintiff herself did not turn up 15 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 22. are dismissed 23. 11.02.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo to appear in the witness box, evidence it stands established on has been duly executed in fav specifically deposed on oath by a PWl who admitted the sale deed the possession of the suit land a sanctioned in his favour. Factum been incorporated in the jamaba girdwari. Findings of lower cour affirmed. Impugned judgment 12.12.2017 do not suffer from an So they do not call for any int Court. This appeal being devo dismissal.” In view of the above disc sed. Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No ox, but from the documentary d on the file that the sale deed favour of the respondent as by attorney of the plaintiff Jyoti deed Ex.P2. The respondent took nd and mutation has also been ctum of possession has already abandi as well as in the khasra court qua all the issues stand ent and decree both dated m any illegality or legal infirmity. y interference of this Appellate devoid of any merit, deserves discussion, the present appeals if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 15 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document