RSA No. 2179 of 1994 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Fazal Din (through LR) Uttam Singh CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:-Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocate DEEPAK GUPTA, J. CM No. 4689 Singh under Order them as respondents in the case. It is submitted by respondent - favour of one Surjeet Singh by virtue of transfer deed dated 23.01.1989 (Annexure A Thereafter, Surjeet Singh transferred/ exchanged the said property in favour of the applican the office of Sub Registrar, Malerkotla vide This way, all the rights and interest in the suit property have been vested in the applicants and as such respondents in the appeal. 2. the appellant respondent of the appeal. The application is supported RSA No. 2179 of 1994 Page N: 1 of 5 Pages IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (through LR) Versus Uttam Singh CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for the respondent. *** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. CM No. 4689-C of 2025 This application has been moved by Bahadur Singh and Hakam Singh under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC them as respondents in the case. It is submitted by - defendant Uttam Singh had transferred the favour of one Surjeet Singh by virtue of transfer deed dated 23.01.1989 (Annexure A-1) as registered in the office of Sub Registrar Malerkotla. Surjeet Singh transferred/ exchanged the said property in favour of the applicants vide exchange deed dated 28.11.2016 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Malerkotla vide V all the rights and interest in the suit property have been vested in the applicants and as such, they are entitled to be impleaded as respondents in the appeal. No reply to the aforesaid application has been filed either by appellant i.e. respondent of the present application respondent of the appeal. The application is supported Pages IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2179 of 1994 (O&M) Reserved on: 25.08.2025 Pronounced on: 28.08.2025 …Appellant …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA This application has been moved by Bahadur Singh and Hakam read with Section 151 CPC to implead them as respondents in the case. It is submitted by Ld. counsel that transferred the suit property in favour of one Surjeet Singh by virtue of transfer deed dated 23.01.1989 as registered in the office of Sub Registrar Malerkotla. Surjeet Singh transferred/ exchanged the said property in ts vide exchange deed dated 28.11.2016 registered in Vasika No. 2168 (Annexure A-2). all the rights and interest in the suit property have been vested in they are entitled to be impleaded as No reply to the aforesaid application has been filed either by i.e. respondent of the present application, or by the respondent of the appeal. The application is supported by the copy of RSA No. 2179 of 1994 (O&M) 25.08.2025 : 28.08.2025 Appellant Respondent This application has been moved by Bahadur Singh and Hakam to implead counsel that suit property in favour of one Surjeet Singh by virtue of transfer deed dated 23.01.1989 as registered in the office of Sub Registrar Malerkotla. Surjeet Singh transferred/ exchanged the said property in ts vide exchange deed dated 28.11.2016 registered in 2). all the rights and interest in the suit property have been vested in they are entitled to be impleaded as No reply to the aforesaid application has been filed either by or by the by the copy of JITEN SHARMA 2025.08.28 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 2179 of 1994 transfer dead as executed by Uttam Singh in favour of Surjeet Singh and then exchange 3. part of the opposite party, the permitted to be to be replaced as respondents of the appeal. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. RSA No. 2179 of 1994 4. second appeal. The suit filed by injunction regarding the property in dispute was decreed by the trial court on 22.03.1990. However, the appeal filed by the defendant Uttam Singh was partly accepted vide possession on four biswas of land out of eight biswas, but it was held that he could be dispossessed only in due course of law. Against the said judgment dated 05.04.1994, plaintiff has approached this Cour 5. length and the paper book perused with their able assistance. 6. his LRs) he is owner in possession of suit land measuri shown in the site plan annexed with the plaint, on which he is in possession for the last 30 years and on which he has installed fodder cutting machine, manger, engine etc. Denying any concern of the defendant with suit and alleging interference on his part, plaintiff prayed for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from doing so. 7. possession of the suit property with which plaintiff has no concern. Defendant further disputed the correctness of the site plan relied by the plaintiff. As per defendant, in fact is comprised in khata/ in village Saudapur, Tehsil Malerkotla as per jamabandi for the year 1987, RSA No. 2179 of 1994 Page N: 2 of 5 Pages transfer dead as executed by Uttam Singh in favour of Surjeet Singh and then exchange-deed executed by Surjeet Singh in favour of the applicants. In view of the above said documents and no part of the opposite party, the application is allowed. The applicants are permitted to be to be replaced as respondents of the appeal. Amended of parties is taken on record. Application stands disposed of. RSA No. 2179 of 1994 Plaintiff of the case is before this court in t second appeal. The suit filed by him seeking a decree of permanent injunction regarding the property in dispute was decreed by the trial court on 22.03.1990. However, the appeal filed by the defendant Uttam Singh was partly accepted vide judgment dated 05.04.1994 possession on four biswas of land out of eight biswas, but it was held that he could be dispossessed only in due course of law. Against the said judgment dated 05.04.1994, plaintiff has approached this Cour Learned counsel for both the parties have been heard at great length and the paper book perused with their able assistance. As per the case pleaded by the plaintiff he is owner in possession of suit land measuri shown in the site plan annexed with the plaint, on which he is in possession for the last 30 years and on which he has installed fodder cutting machine, manger, engine etc. Denying any concern of the defendant with suit and nterference on his part, plaintiff prayed for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from doing so. As per the stand taken by the defendant, he is owner in possession of the suit property with which plaintiff has no concern. ant further disputed the correctness of the site plan relied by the plaintiff. As per defendant, in fact the disputed land measuring eight biswas is comprised in khata/ Khatauni No. 97/189, khasra No. 816/1(0 in village Saudapur, Tehsil Malerkotla as per jamabandi for the year 1987, Pages transfer dead as executed by Uttam Singh in favour of Surjeet Singh and deed executed by Surjeet Singh in favour of the applicants. said documents and no contest on the application is allowed. The applicants are permitted to be to be replaced as respondents of the appeal. Amended Application stands disposed of. Plaintiff of the case is before this court in the present regular seeking a decree of permanent injunction regarding the property in dispute was decreed by the trial court on 22.03.1990. However, the appeal filed by the defendant Uttam Singh judgment dated 05.04.1994 by holding plaintiff’s possession on four biswas of land out of eight biswas, but it was held that he could be dispossessed only in due course of law. Against the said judgment dated 05.04.1994, plaintiff has approached this Court. Learned counsel for both the parties have been heard at great length and the paper book perused with their able assistance. As per the case pleaded by the plaintiff (now appellant through he is owner in possession of suit land measuring 207-2/3 sq. yards shown in the site plan annexed with the plaint, on which he is in possession for the last 30 years and on which he has installed fodder cutting machine, manger, engine etc. Denying any concern of the defendant with suit and nterference on his part, plaintiff prayed for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from doing so. As per the stand taken by the defendant, he is owner in possession of the suit property with which plaintiff has no concern. ant further disputed the correctness of the site plan relied by the disputed land measuring eight biswas No. 97/189, khasra No. 816/1(0-8) situated in village Saudapur, Tehsil Malerkotla as per jamabandi for the year 1987, transfer dead as executed by Uttam Singh in favour of Surjeet Singh and on the application is allowed. The applicants are permitted to be to be replaced as respondents of the appeal. Amended he present regular seeking a decree of permanent injunction regarding the property in dispute was decreed by the trial court on 22.03.1990. However, the appeal filed by the defendant Uttam Singh plaintiff’s possession on four biswas of land out of eight biswas, but it was held that he could be dispossessed only in due course of law. Against the said Learned counsel for both the parties have been heard at great (now appellant through 2/3 sq. yards shown in the site plan annexed with the plaint, on which he is in possession for the last 30 years and on which he has installed fodder cutting machine, manger, engine etc. Denying any concern of the defendant with suit and nterference on his part, plaintiff prayed for a decree of permanent As per the stand taken by the defendant, he is owner in possession of the suit property with which plaintiff has no concern. ant further disputed the correctness of the site plan relied by the disputed land measuring eight biswas 8) situated JITEN SHARMAin village Saudapur, Tehsil Malerkotla as per jamabandi for the year 1987, 2025.08.28 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 2179 of 1994 out of which he constructed kacha house over 1 by him to Roshan Singh about two months ago and who had raised construction of his house. Remaining 6 owner. Defendant further pleaded that wall in between the house of plaintiff and the house in dispute had fallen down during the rainy season. He requested the plaintiff several times do so and rather filed the present suit to grab the suit property under the garb of present suit without having any right to do so. With this stand defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 8. parties was taken on record. The trial Court, based upon the oral evidence produced by the plaintiff, held the plaintiff to be owner in possession of the suit property and as such, decreed the suit. 9. demarcation conducted by the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court, suit property comprised in khasra number 816 measuring 8 biswas, which was owned by the defendant as per jamabandi for the year 1981 and khasra Girdawari (Ex.D6) and it was recorded to be a gair mumkin plot. It was further found from the report of the Local Commissioner that plaintiff was in unauthorized possession of four biswas of the suit land without having any right to do so. As such, the to the effect that possession of the respondent biswas of land, which was illegal and unauthorized and that he could be dispossessed from the same only in due course of law and not forcibly. It was specifically held that as far as ownership is concerned, it is the defendant who was the owner thereof and that he can seek his remedy to evict the plaintiff in due course of law. 10. contended by learned counsel for the appellant Court has wrongly held the defendant to be owner of the suit land simply on the basis of entry in the jamabandi. The contention of learned counsel is RSA No. 2179 of 1994 Page N: 3 of 5 Pages out of which he constructed kacha house over 1 by him to Roshan Singh about two months ago and who had raised nstruction of his house. Remaining 6-3/4 biswas is in his possession as owner. Defendant further pleaded that wall in between the house of plaintiff and the house in dispute had fallen down during the rainy season. He requested the plaintiff several times to construct the wall but he did not do so and rather filed the present suit to grab the suit property under the garb of present suit without having any right to do so. With this stand defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the parties was taken on record. The trial Court, based upon the oral evidence produced by the plaintiff, held the plaintiff to be owner in possession of the suit property and as such, decreed the suit. However, the Appellate Court found that as per the demarcation conducted by the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court, suit property comprised in khasra number 816 measuring 8 biswas, which was owned by the defendant as per jamabandi for the year 1981 ra Girdawari (Ex.D6) and it was recorded to be a gair mumkin plot. It was further found from the report of the Local Commissioner that plaintiff was in unauthorized possession of four biswas of the suit land without having any right to do so. As such, the to the effect that possession of the respondent biswas of land, which was illegal and unauthorized and that he could be dispossessed from the same only in due course of law and not forcibly. It cally held that as far as ownership is concerned, it is the defendant who was the owner thereof and that he can seek his remedy to evict the plaintiff in due course of law. Assailing the aforesaid finding of the First Appellate Court, it is d by learned counsel for the appellant Court has wrongly held the defendant to be owner of the suit land simply on the basis of entry in the jamabandi. The contention of learned counsel is Pages out of which he constructed kacha house over 1-1/4 biswa,which was sold by him to Roshan Singh about two months ago and who had raised 3/4 biswas is in his possession as owner. Defendant further pleaded that wall in between the house of plaintiff and the house in dispute had fallen down during the rainy season. to construct the wall but he did not do so and rather filed the present suit to grab the suit property under the garb of present suit without having any right to do so. With this stand framed. Evidence produced by the parties was taken on record. The trial Court, based upon the oral evidence produced by the plaintiff, held the plaintiff to be owner in possession of the suit property and as such, decreed the suit. ate Court found that as per the demarcation conducted by the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court, suit property comprised in khasra number 816 measuring 8 biswas, which was owned by the defendant as per jamabandi for the year 1981-82 (Ex.D5) ra Girdawari (Ex.D6) and it was recorded to be a gair mumkin plot. It was further found from the report of the Local Commissioner that plaintiff was in unauthorized possession of four biswas of the suit land without having any right to do so. As such, the appeal was partly accepted to the effect that possession of the respondent-plaintiff was over four biswas of land, which was illegal and unauthorized and that he could be dispossessed from the same only in due course of law and not forcibly. It cally held that as far as ownership is concerned, it is the defendant who was the owner thereof and that he can seek his remedy to Assailing the aforesaid finding of the First Appellate Court, it is d by learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that Appellate Court has wrongly held the defendant to be owner of the suit land simply on the basis of entry in the jamabandi. The contention of learned counsel is 1/4 biswa,which was sold by him to Roshan Singh about two months ago and who had raised 3/4 biswas is in his possession as owner. Defendant further pleaded that wall in between the house of plaintiff and the house in dispute had fallen down during the rainy season. to construct the wall but he did not do so and rather filed the present suit to grab the suit property under the garb of present suit without having any right to do so. With this stand framed. Evidence produced by the parties was taken on record. The trial Court, based upon the oral evidence produced by the plaintiff, held the plaintiff to be owner in possession of ate Court found that as per the demarcation conducted by the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court, suit property comprised in khasra number 816 measuring 8 biswas, which 82 (Ex.D5) ra Girdawari (Ex.D6) and it was recorded to be a gair mumkin plot. It was further found from the report of the Local Commissioner that plaintiff was in unauthorized possession of four biswas of the suit land appeal was partly accepted plaintiff was over four biswas of land, which was illegal and unauthorized and that he could be dispossessed from the same only in due course of law and not forcibly. It cally held that as far as ownership is concerned, it is the defendant who was the owner thereof and that he can seek his remedy to Assailing the aforesaid finding of the First Appellate Court, it is plaintiff that Appellate Court has wrongly held the defendant to be owner of the suit land simply on the basis of entry in the jamabandi. The contention of learned counsel is JITEN SHARMA 2025.08.28 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 2179 of 1994 that entries in cannot be considered to be proof of title. Learned counsel prayed for restoring the judgment of the trial Court by setting Appellate Court. 11. defendant submitted that entries in truthfulness unless the same are rebutted and that in the present case, plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of ownership in f defendant. 12. this Court finds that there is no merit in the present appeal. It has not been disputed before the Court that as per the demarcation of the suit property conducted by that suit property is comprised in khasra number 816/1 and as per the revenue record i.e. entries in jamabandi (Ex.D5), said khasra number is owned by the defendant that any objection was filed against the report of the local Commissioner. 13. fiscal purposes, but at the same time, Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act clearly provides truthfulness unless the same is rebutted. 14. In the present case, except for the oral evidence produced by the plaintiff so as to assert his ownership over the suit land, there is no other evidence to rebut t that in view of the entries in the jamabandi, and in the absence of any cogent evidence, simply the oral evidence of the plaintiff cannot be believed so as to rebut the presumption. As such, the Appellat rightly held the defendant 15. of the suit land has been found, so Appellate Court has rightly held that the RSA No. 2179 of 1994 Page N: 4 of 5 Pages that entries in Jamabandies are recorded o cannot be considered to be proof of title. Learned counsel prayed for restoring the judgment of the trial Court by setting Appellate Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent defendant submitted that entries in Jamabandies truthfulness unless the same are rebutted and that in the present case, plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of ownership in f After considering submissions of counsel for both the sides, this Court finds that there is no merit in the present appeal. It has not been disputed before the Court that as per the demarcation of the suit property conducted by the local Commissioner appointed by the Court, it was found that suit property is comprised in khasra number 816/1 and as per the revenue record i.e. entries in jamabandi (Ex.D5), said khasra number is owned by the defendant-respondent. There is nothing o that any objection was filed against the report of the local Commissioner. No doubt the entries in the jamabandi are recorded for the fiscal purposes, but at the same time, Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act clearly provides that the said entry carries truthfulness unless the same is rebutted. In the present case, except for the oral evidence produced by the plaintiff so as to assert his ownership over the suit land, there is no other evidence to rebut the presumption. The Appellate Court has rightly held that in view of the entries in the jamabandi, and in the absence of any cogent evidence, simply the oral evidence of the plaintiff cannot be so as to rebut the presumption. As such, the Appellat rightly held the defendant-respondent to be owner of the suit property. Since possession of the plaintiff of the suit land has been found, so Appellate Court has rightly held that the Pages are recorded only for the fiscal purposes and cannot be considered to be proof of title. Learned counsel prayed for restoring the judgment of the trial Court by setting aside that of the On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Jamabandies contain presumption of truthfulness unless the same are rebutted and that in the present case, plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of ownership in favour of the After considering submissions of counsel for both the sides, this Court finds that there is no merit in the present appeal. It has not been disputed before the Court that as per the demarcation of the suit property the local Commissioner appointed by the Court, it was found that suit property is comprised in khasra number 816/1 and as per the revenue record i.e. entries in jamabandi (Ex.D5), said khasra number is respondent. There is nothing on record to suggest that any objection was filed against the report of the local Commissioner. No doubt the entries in the jamabandi are recorded for the fiscal purposes, but at the same time, Section 44 of the Punjab Land that the said entry carries a presumption of In the present case, except for the oral evidence produced by the plaintiff so as to assert his ownership over the suit land, there is no other he presumption. The Appellate Court has rightly held that in view of the entries in the jamabandi, and in the absence of any cogent evidence, simply the oral evidence of the plaintiff cannot be so as to rebut the presumption. As such, the Appellate Court respondent to be owner of the suit property. Since possession of the plaintiff-appellant over four biswas out of the suit land has been found, so Appellate Court has rightly held that the nly for the fiscal purposes and cannot be considered to be proof of title. Learned counsel prayed for side that of the - contain presumption of truthfulness unless the same are rebutted and that in the present case, avour of the After considering submissions of counsel for both the sides, this Court finds that there is no merit in the present appeal. It has not been disputed before the Court that as per the demarcation of the suit property the local Commissioner appointed by the Court, it was found that suit property is comprised in khasra number 816/1 and as per the revenue record i.e. entries in jamabandi (Ex.D5), said khasra number is n record to suggest No doubt the entries in the jamabandi are recorded for the fiscal purposes, but at the same time, Section 44 of the Punjab Land presumption of In the present case, except for the oral evidence produced by the plaintiff so as to assert his ownership over the suit land, there is no other he presumption. The Appellate Court has rightly held that in view of the entries in the jamabandi, and in the absence of any cogent evidence, simply the oral evidence of the plaintiff cannot be e Court appellant over four biswas out of the suit land has been found, so Appellate Court has rightly held that the JITEN SHARMA 2025.08.28 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 2179 of 1994 said possession is illegal the defendant only in due course of law. 16. said findings as recorded by the First Appellate Court, which are based on proper appreciation interfere in the same. Consequently, holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, same is hereby dismissed. 28.08.2025 Jiten RSA No. 2179 of 1994 Page N: 5 of 5 Pages said possession is illegal and unauthorized but he can be dispossessed by the defendant only in due course of law. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the afore said findings as recorded by the First Appellate Court, which are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. interfere in the same. Consequently, holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, same is hereby dismissed. Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : Pages and unauthorized but he can be dispossessed by This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the afore said findings as recorded by the First Appellate Court, which are based on of evidence on record. As such, there is no reason to interfere in the same. Consequently, holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, same is hereby dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No and unauthorized but he can be dispossessed by This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the afore said findings as recorded by the First Appellate Court, which are based on As such, there is no reason to interfere in the same. Consequently, holding the present appeal to be JITEN SHARMA 2025.08.28 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document