RSA-104-2021 166 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA GURDEEP SINGH @ GURDITT THROUGH LR A.K. VAID AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Mr. C.S. Bakshi, Advocate for the respondents (through video conferencing). HARKESH MANUJA By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to judgments and decrees the Courts below whereby, a suit for declaration to the effect that respondent Nos.1 and 2 were joint owners in possession of the land in question s/o Amar Nath as son and widow respectively; Rapat No.182 dated 22.11.2004 (Ex. P tehsil Bassi Pathana, allotment of suit land in favo document dated 15.07.1976 (Ex.D favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 (Ex.D2) were liable thereby, conferring no right, title or interest up consequently, the entries be corr and 2. It was further prayed that a decree for permanent injunction also passed 2021 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: GURDEEP SINGH @ GURDITT SINGH (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND ANR Versus A.K. VAID AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Advocate for the Mr. C.S. Bakshi, Advocate for the respondents (through video conferencing). **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to judgments and decrees dated 28.02.2017 and 18.03.2020 passed by the Courts below whereby, a suit for declaration to the effect that respondent Nos.1 and 2 were joint owners in possession of the land in question having been inherited from deceased ar Nath as son and widow respectively; Rapat No.182 dated (Ex. P-23) in Roznamcha Revenue of village Karimpura, tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib allotment of suit land in favour of Amar Nath s/o Moti Ram document dated 15.07.1976 (Ex.D1) further reflecting allotment in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 vide document dated 03.09.1976 (Ex.D2) were liable to be set aside being false, forged and fabricated thereby, conferring no right, title or interest up consequently, the entries be corrected in the name of respondent Nos.1 . It was further prayed that a decree for permanent injunction also passed for restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 including 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-104-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 23, 2025 SINGH (NOW DECEASED) ........Appellants ........Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Advocate for the appellants. Mr. C.S. Bakshi, Advocate for the respondents By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid to the dated 28.02.2017 and 18.03.2020 passed by the Courts below whereby, a suit for declaration to the effect that respondent Nos.1 and 2 were joint owners in possession of 1/2 share of inherited from deceased-Mangat Ram ar Nath as son and widow respectively; Rapat No.182 dated in Roznamcha Revenue of village Karimpura, Fatehgarh Sahib regarding cancellation of r of Amar Nath s/o Moti Ram based on further reflecting allotment in vide document dated 03.09.1976 to be set aside being false, forged and fabricated thereby, conferring no right, title or interest upon them and ected in the name of respondent Nos.1 . It was further prayed that a decree for permanent injunction be for restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 including 1 (O&M) May 23, 2025 the dated 28.02.2017 and 18.03.2020 passed by the Courts below whereby, a suit for declaration to the effect that share of Mangat Ram ar Nath as son and widow respectively; Rapat No.182 dated in Roznamcha Revenue of village Karimpura, cancellation of sed on further reflecting allotment in vide document dated 03.09.1976 to be set aside being false, forged and fabricated on them and ected in the name of respondent Nos.1 be for restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 including TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.06.02 13:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-104-2021 servants/agents thereby, restraining them f in any manner as well as granting decree for possession in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Briefly stating, the facts pleaded in the plaint are that the predecessor-in Ram was allotted half share of land measuring 208 kanals and 5 marlas situated at village Karimpura, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib in the year 1950 by the Rehabilitation Department. After the death of Amar Nath in the year 1955, th name of Mangat Ram i.e. father of plaintiff No.4 as joint owner in possession to the extent of half share 22.09.1991, Sh. Mangat Ram expired and defendant No.4 as widow pleaded that since plaintiff got commissioned in 22.12.1979 as necessary mutation entered regarding as in favour of back that the plaintiff came to know prepared false and forged documents about cancellation of allotment in the name of Amar Nath with the Patwari Halqa, Village District Fatehgarh Sahib name of Amar Nath was never cancelled by nor the suit land and thus, the documents and fabricated as such a declaration to this effect be granted in favour 2021 (O&M) servants/agents thereby, restraining them f in any manner as well as granting decree for possession in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Briefly stating, the facts pleaded in the plaint are that the in-interest (grandfather) of plaintiff i.e. Amar Nath s Ram was allotted half share of land measuring 208 kanals and 5 marlas situated at village Karimpura, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib in the year 1950 by the Rehabilitation Department. After the death of Amar Nath in the year 1955, the suit land was mutated in the name of Mangat Ram i.e. father of plaintiff as joint owner in possession to the extent of half share 22.09.1991, Sh. Mangat Ram expired while and defendant No.4 as widow being his heirs pleaded that since plaintiff got commissioned in as thus being away from his native place could not got the necessary mutation entered regarding the suit land i in favour of proforma defendant No.4 and it was only two months back that the plaintiff came to know that defendant Nos.1 to 3 having prepared false and forged documents about cancellation of allotment in the name of Amar Nath; also about rappat No.182 dated 22.11.2004 with the Patwari Halqa, Village Karimpura, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib. It was pleaded that allotment made in the name of Amar Nath was never cancelled by he suit land was ever allotted in the name of defendant Nos.1 to 3 the documents relied upon in this regard were all false, forged and fabricated as such a declaration to this effect be granted in favour 2 servants/agents thereby, restraining them from alienating the suit land in any manner as well as granting decree for possession in favour of Briefly stating, the facts pleaded in the plaint are that the of plaintiff i.e. Amar Nath s/o Moti Ram was allotted half share of land measuring 208 kanals and 5 marlas situated at village Karimpura, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib in the year 1950 by the Rehabilitation Department. After the e suit land was mutated in the name of Mangat Ram i.e. father of plaintiff and husband of defendant as joint owner in possession to the extent of half share. On e, leaving plaintiff as his son being his heirs. It has been further pleaded that since plaintiff got commissioned in the Indian Army on thus being away from his native place could not got the the suit land in his favour as well proforma defendant No.4 and it was only two months defendant Nos.1 to 3 having prepared false and forged documents about cancellation of allotment in rappat No.182 dated 22.11.2004 Karimpura, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, . It was pleaded that allotment made in the name of Amar Nath was never cancelled by the competent authority, was ever allotted in the name of defendant Nos.1 to 3 in this regard were all false, forged and fabricated as such a declaration to this effect be granted in favour 2 rom alienating the suit land in any manner as well as granting decree for possession in favour of Briefly stating, the facts pleaded in the plaint are that the /o Moti Ram was allotted half share of land measuring 208 kanals and 5 marlas situated at village Karimpura, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib in the year 1950 by the Rehabilitation Department. After the e suit land was mutated in the and husband of defendant . On , leaving plaintiff as his son . It has been further Army on thus being away from his native place could not got the favour as well proforma defendant No.4 and it was only two months defendant Nos.1 to 3 having prepared false and forged documents about cancellation of allotment in rappat No.182 dated 22.11.2004 Karimpura, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, . It was pleaded that allotment made in the , was ever allotted in the name of defendant Nos.1 to 3 in this regard were all false, forged and fabricated as such a declaration to this effect be granted in favour TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.06.02 13:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-104-2021 of plaintiff as well as defendant No.4 fol the joint owner to the extent of half share of the land described in the plaint besides granting them a decree for joint possession as well as permanent injunction alienating the suit land in any manner 3. Upon notice, defendant written statement while submitting that the suit was barred by limitation. It was also submitted that since the by the Rehabilitation Department, in the absence of State of Punjab through Department of Rehabilitation be dismissed when the other co was further pleaded that allotment in favour of Amar Nath was cancelled by thereafter fresh of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and post thereupon rappat No.182 dated 22.11.2004 was village Karimpura, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib. was also pleaded that neither the plaintiff remained in possession of the property in question dismissal of suit. defendant Nos. 1 to 3 was filed by the plaintiff having controverted the stand taken there 4. On were framed by the Court below: 2021 (O&M) of plaintiff as well as defendant No.4 followed by declaring them to be owner to the extent of half share of the land described in the plaint besides granting them a decree for joint possession as well as permanent injunction by restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 from alienating the suit land in any manner. Upon notice, defendant Nos.1 to 3 written statement while submitting that the suit was barred by limitation. It was also submitted that since the matter related to allotment of land by the Rehabilitation Department, in the absence of State of Punjab through Department of Rehabilitation being party on account of non-joinder of necessary parties especially e other co-sharers of the suit land were even not impleaded was further pleaded that allotment in favour of Amar Nath was cancelled by the Department of Rehabilitation on 15.07.1976 and thereafter fresh Sanad allotment dated 03.09.1976 of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and post thereupon rappat No.182 dated 22.11.2004 was even entered in their name by the Patwari Halqa, Karimpura, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib. also pleaded that neither the plaintiff remained in possession of the property in question dismissal of suit. Replication to the written statement defendant Nos. 1 to 3 was filed by the plaintiff having controverted the therein. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Court below:- 3 lowed by declaring them to be owner to the extent of half share of the land described in the plaint besides granting them a decree for joint possession as well as by restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 from Nos.1 to 3 appeared and filed their written statement while submitting that the suit was barred by limitation. matter related to allotment of land by the Rehabilitation Department, in the absence of State of Punjab being party, the suit was liable to joinder of necessary parties especially sharers of the suit land were even not impleaded. It was further pleaded that allotment in favour of Amar Nath was Department of Rehabilitation on 15.07.1976 and dated 03.09.1976 was issued in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and post thereupon rappat No.182 dated entered in their name by the Patwari Halqa, Karimpura, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib. It also pleaded that neither the plaintiff, nor his predecessors even remained in possession of the property in question and thus, prayed for written statement on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 was filed by the plaintiff having controverted the the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues 3 lowed by declaring them to be owner to the extent of half share of the land described in the plaint besides granting them a decree for joint possession as well as by restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 from appeared and filed their written statement while submitting that the suit was barred by limitation. matter related to allotment of land by the Rehabilitation Department, in the absence of State of Punjab , the suit was liable to joinder of necessary parties especially . It was further pleaded that allotment in favour of Amar Nath was Department of Rehabilitation on 15.07.1976 and vour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and post thereupon rappat No.182 dated entered in their name by the Patwari Halqa, It even and thus, prayed for on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 was filed by the plaintiff having controverted the the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.06.02 13:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-104-2021 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. present suit? OPD 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 5. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2017 decreed the suit in favour of p defendant No.4 as joint owners detailed in the plaint allotment by Rehabilitation Department, besides, joint possession as well as for restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 from alienating the suit property manner. A declaration was further granted cancellation of allotment of Amar Nath, passed on 15.07.1976 as well 2021 (O&M) 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the property in dispute? OPP Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPP Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Permanent Injunction as prayed for? OPP 4. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 6. ⁠ Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 8. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to file the present suit?OPD 9. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 10. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 11. Whether the suit is under valued for purposes of court fee? OPD 12. Relief. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2017 decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff by declaring him along with defendant No.4 as joint owners to the extent of ½ share detailed in the plaint being successors of Amar Nath, having upheld his allotment by Rehabilitation Department, besides, joint possession as well as for permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 from alienating the suit property . A declaration was further granted of allotment of Amar Nath, passed on 15.07.1976 as well 4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Permanent Injunction as Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD er the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the Whether this court has no jurisdiction to file the present maintainable in the present form? Whether the suit is time barred? OPD Whether the suit is under valued for purposes of court fee? The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2017 laintiff by declaring him along with to the extent of ½ share of the property being successors of Amar Nath, having upheld his allotment by Rehabilitation Department, besides, awarding a decree for permanent injunction in their favour for, restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 from alienating the suit property in any . A declaration was further granted to the effect that the order of of allotment of Amar Nath, passed on 15.07.1976 as well 4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Permanent Injunction as Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and er the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the Whether this court has no jurisdiction to file the present maintainable in the present form? Whether the suit is under valued for purposes of court fee? The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2017 laintiff by declaring him along with of the property being successors of Amar Nath, having upheld his awarding a decree for , in any to the effect that the order of of allotment of Amar Nath, passed on 15.07.1976 as well TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.06.02 13:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-104-2021 as the order dated 03.09.1976 regarding fresh allotment in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 being produced as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 respectively were false, forged and fabricated documents thereby, creating title or interest in their favour and consequently, the rappat No.182 dated 22.11.2004 entered in the roznamcha revenue, Village Karimpura, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib was illegal, null and void. Legal objections raised by defe suit being barred by limitation and not maintainable on account of non joinder of necessary parties were even rejected. 6. Upon challenge to the 28.02.2017 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sahib, the same was upheld by the Court of District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment and decree upholding the decree granted in favour of plaintiff as well as defendant No.4, hence the present appeal. 7. Impugn passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the suit in hand limitation as defendant Nos.1 to 3 always remained property in question on the basis of property in question, of adverse possession and as such the Learned counsel Courts below with respect to the documents dated 15.07.1976 and 03.09.1976 2021 (O&M) as the order dated 03.09.1976 regarding fresh allotment in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 being produced as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 respectively false, forged and fabricated documents thereby, creating title or interest in their favour and consequently, the rappat No.182 dated 22.11.2004 entered in the roznamcha revenue, Village Karimpura, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib was illegal, null and void. Legal objections raised by defe suit being barred by limitation and not maintainable on account of non joinder of necessary parties were even rejected. Upon challenge to the judgment and decree 28.02.2017 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sahib, the same was upheld by the Court of District Judge, Fatehgarh judgment and decree dated 18.03.2020 consequently upholding the decree granted in favour of plaintiff as well as defendant No.4, hence the present appeal. Impugning the aforementioned passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the suit in hand for declaration and possession defendant Nos.1 to 3 always remained property in question since last 70 years. It has also been submitted that on the basis of their long settled uninterrupted possession over the rty in question, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 of adverse possession and as such the suit was liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel further submits that the findings recorded by the Courts below with respect to the documents dated 15.07.1976 and 03.09.1976 (Ex.D2) as well as rappat No.182 dated 22.11.2004 5 as the order dated 03.09.1976 regarding fresh allotment in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 being produced as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 respectively, false, forged and fabricated documents thereby, creating no right, title or interest in their favour and consequently, the rappat No.182 dated 22.11.2004 entered in the roznamcha revenue, Village Karimpura, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib was illegal, null and void. Legal objections raised by defendant Nos.1 to 3 about suit being barred by limitation and not maintainable on account of non- joinder of necessary parties were even rejected. judgment and decree dated 28.02.2017 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Fatehgarh Sahib, the same was upheld by the Court of District Judge, Fatehgarh dated 18.03.2020 consequently upholding the decree granted in favour of plaintiff as well as defendant ing the aforementioned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellants submits for declaration and possession was barred by defendant Nos.1 to 3 always remained in possession of the last 70 years. It has also been submitted that long settled uninterrupted possession over the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have become owner by way suit was liable to be dismissed. submits that the findings recorded by the Courts below with respect to the documents dated 15.07.1976 (Ex.D1) as well as rappat No.182 dated 22.11.2004 5 as the order dated 03.09.1976 regarding fresh allotment in favour of , no right, title or interest in their favour and consequently, the rappat No.182 dated 22.11.2004 entered in the roznamcha revenue, Village Karimpura, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib was illegal, ndant Nos.1 to 3 about - dated Fatehgarh Sahib, the same was upheld by the Court of District Judge, Fatehgarh dated 18.03.2020 consequently upholding the decree granted in favour of plaintiff as well as defendant judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellants submits was barred by he last 70 years. It has also been submitted that long settled uninterrupted possession over the have become owner by way suit was liable to be dismissed. submits that the findings recorded by the (Ex.D1) as well as rappat No.182 dated 22.11.2004 TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.06.02 13:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-104-2021 (Ex.P-23) being forged void was not based on any cogent evidence. He though, document dated 15.07.1976 which cancellation of allotment dated 03.09.1976 (E of defendant Nos.1 to 3 were signed by one Umrao Singh, Naib Tehsildar, whereas person who appeared as PW actually signed further submits that the entire finding on the issue of forgery of documents Exs.D judgment dated 11.12.2015 defendant Nos.1 to 3 were convicted under Sections 465, 467, 471/477 read with Section 120 aforementioned documents available on record to establish decision dated 11.12.2015 (Annexure P before this Court and was been relied upon further submits that the plaintiff allotment of suit Exs.P-2, P-3 and P Moreover, those PW-6, namely Exs.28, 29 and 30 respectively that said Balwant Singh was fully conversant with Urdu Language 2021 (O&M) 23) being forged and fabricated and thus, being illegal, null and void was not based on any cogent evidence. He though, document dated 15.07.1976 which cancellation of allotment of deceased Amar Nath and dated 03.09.1976 (Ex. D-2) i.e. the fresh allotment letter made in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 were signed by one Umrao Singh, Naib whereas it was nowhere established on record that the person who appeared as PW-2 was the same Umrao Singh who signed these documents. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the entire finding on the issue of forgery of documents Exs.D-1, D-2 and Ex.P-23 was primarily based on the judgment dated 11.12.2015 passed by the learned J.M.I.C. os.1 to 3 were convicted under Sections 465, 467, 471/477 read with Section 120-B of IPC for having committed forg aforementioned documents, whereas there was no other available on record to establish such fact. He also points out decision dated 11.12.2015 (Annexure P before this Court and was never final so far been relied upon conclusively. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the plaintiff even failed to prove on record the suit land in the name of Amar Nath as the originals of 3 and P-4 in Urdu Language were never Moreover, those documents in Urdu langu namely, Balwant Singh having proved Exs.28, 29 and 30 respectively, in the absence of any proof on record that said Balwant Singh was fully conversant with Urdu Language 6 and thus, being illegal, null and void was not based on any cogent evidence. He also submits that though, document dated 15.07.1976 which was related to the of deceased Amar Nath and the document 2) i.e. the fresh allotment letter made in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 were signed by one Umrao Singh, Naib it was nowhere established on record that the 2 was the same Umrao Singh who documents. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the entire finding on the issue of forgery of 23 was primarily based on the passed by the learned J.M.I.C. whereby, os.1 to 3 were convicted under Sections 465, 467, 471/477 B of IPC for having committed forgery of there was no other evidence fact. He also points out that the decision dated 11.12.2015 (Annexure P-34) was under challenge so far and as such could not have . Learned counsel for the appellants failed to prove on record the land in the name of Amar Nath as the originals of were never proved on record. language were got translated by having proved the translated versions in the absence of any proof on record that said Balwant Singh was fully conversant with Urdu Language. Mr. 6 and thus, being illegal, null and also submits that the the document 2) i.e. the fresh allotment letter made in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 were signed by one Umrao Singh, Naib it was nowhere established on record that the 2 was the same Umrao Singh who documents. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the entire finding on the issue of forgery of 23 was primarily based on the whereby, os.1 to 3 were convicted under Sections 465, 467, 471/477 ery of evidence that the 34) was under challenge and as such could not have s failed to prove on record the land in the name of Amar Nath as the originals of proved on record. age were got translated by translated versions in the absence of any proof on record Mr. TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.06.02 13:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-104-2021 Chopra thus submits that the allotment was never established on record. He also submits that only the revenue entries showing the allotment in the name of Amar Nath were proved whereas, in the absence of there being proof of any sanad allotment or any Court order in this regard, no declaration been granted aforesaid documents though, produced on record, were never pleaded by the plaintiff in also submits that no handwri order to prove counsel for the appellants behalf of PW-1, it was specifically stated that the suit land was g Batai by their father Mangat Ram to defendant Nos.1 & 3 and Shingara Singh and thus, the civil Court possession. No other argument has been addressed, however, learned counsel relies upon following judgment Supreme Court (i) “Suraj Bhan reported as 2007(6) SCC 186 (ii) “Prahlad Pradhan and Others. Vs. Sonu Kumhar Others (iii) “Ramiah Vs. N. Narayana Reddy of 1999, decided on 11.08.2004 (iv) “Ravinder Kaur Grewal Vs. Manjit Kaur No 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that once the documents Exs.P 2021 (O&M) thus submits that the allotment of suit r established on record. He also submits that only the revenue entries showing the allotment in the name of Amar Nath were proved in the absence of there being proof of any sanad allotment or any Court order in this regard, no declaration granted in favour of plaintiff. It has also aforesaid documents though, produced on record, were never pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint and therefore also submits that no handwriting expert was produced by the plaintiff in order to prove any forgery committed by defendant Nos.1 to 3. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits 1, it was specifically stated that the suit land was g Batai by their father Mangat Ram to defendant Nos.1 & 3 and Shingara Singh and thus, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant decree for . No other argument has been addressed, however, learned counsel relies upon following judgment Supreme Court in support of his submissions: Suraj Bhan and Others Vs. Financial Commissioner reported as 2007(6) SCC 186; Prahlad Pradhan and Others. Vs. Sonu Kumhar Others” reported as 2020(1) RCR(Civil) 70 Ramiah Vs. N. Narayana Reddy of 1999, decided on 11.08.2004 Ravinder Kaur Grewal Vs. Manjit Kaur No.7764/2014, decided on 07.08.2019. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits the documents Exs.P-2, P-3 and P 7 of suit in favour of Amar Nath r established on record. He also submits that only the revenue entries showing the allotment in the name of Amar Nath were proved in the absence of there being proof of any sanad allotment or any Court order in this regard, no declaration qua ownership could have in favour of plaintiff. It has also been submitted that the aforesaid documents though, produced on record, were never pleaded and therefore cannot be relied upon. He ting expert was produced by the plaintiff in forgery committed by defendant Nos.1 to 3. Learned further submits that in the affidavit filed on 1, it was specifically stated that the suit land was given on Batai by their father Mangat Ram to defendant Nos.1 & 3 and Shingara no jurisdiction to grant decree for . No other argument has been addressed, however, learned counsel relies upon following judgments passed by the Hon’ble in support of his submissions:- Vs. Financial Commissioner” Prahlad Pradhan and Others. Vs. Sonu Kumhar and reported as 2020(1) RCR(Civil) 70; Ramiah Vs. N. Narayana Reddy”, Civil Appeal No.5864 of 1999, decided on 11.08.2004; Ravinder Kaur Grewal Vs. Manjit Kaur”, Civil Appeal .7764/2014, decided on 07.08.2019. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits 3 and P-4 were proved on record 7 in favour of Amar Nath r established on record. He also submits that only the revenue entries showing the allotment in the name of Amar Nath were proved in the absence of there being proof of any sanad allotment or could have submitted that the aforesaid documents though, produced on record, were never pleaded . He ting expert was produced by the plaintiff in forgery committed by defendant Nos.1 to 3. Learned that in the affidavit filed on iven on Batai by their father Mangat Ram to defendant Nos.1 & 3 and Shingara no jurisdiction to grant decree for . No other argument has been addressed, however, learned passed by the Hon’ble ” and , Civil Appeal No.5864 , Civil Appeal On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits 4 were proved on record TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.06.02 13:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-104-2021 by PW4 Amarjit Kumar O/o Director, Land Records, Punjab besides, even its translated version allotment of subject land in favour of Amar Nath was on record. He also submits that the entries of allotment were duly recorded even in the revenue record which were never were stopped from raising any such plea of laying chal allotment of suit the factum of forgery of documents Exs.D established on record as original records of the Rehabilitation Department, Govern Punjab besides, the signatures the concerned Naib Tehsildar i.e. Umrao Singh while appearing as PW 2. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeal was required to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel through the paper submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants 10. In the present case, right from inception, the original allotment of subject land in favour of Amar Nath has disputed or denied by defendant Nos.1 to 3 either in their statement or even while appearing in the witness box. revenue entries presumption of truth Mangat Ram in the column of ownership have been by the Courts below as corroborative piece of evidence 2021 (O&M) by PW4 Amarjit Kumar O/o Director, Land Records, Punjab besides, translated version proved as Exs. P allotment of subject land in favour of Amar Nath was on record. He also submits that the entries of allotment were duly recorded even in the revenue record i.e. the subsequent jamabandis which were never challenged by defendant Nos.1 to were stopped from raising any such plea of laying chal of suit land to Amar Nath. Learned counsel also submits that of forgery of documents Exs.D established on record as the same were never even found in the original records of the Rehabilitation Department, Govern Punjab besides, the signatures thereupon the concerned Naib Tehsildar i.e. Umrao Singh while appearing as PW Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeal was required to be I have heard learned counsel through the paper-book. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants In the present case, right from inception, the original allotment of subject land in favour of Amar Nath has disputed or denied by defendant Nos.1 to 3 either in their or even while appearing in the witness box. revenue entries in the form of Jamabandis Exs.P8 to P16 which carry presumption of truth and are reflecting the names of Amar Mangat Ram in the column of ownership have been by the Courts below as corroborative piece of evidence 8 by PW4 Amarjit Kumar O/o Director, Land Records, Punjab besides, proved as Exs. P-28, 29 and 30, the allotment of subject land in favour of Amar Nath was fully established on record. He also submits that the entries of allotment were duly i.e. the subsequent jamabandis challenged by defendant Nos.1 to 3 and thus, they were stopped from raising any such plea of laying challenge to Amar Nath. Learned counsel also submits that of forgery of documents Exs.D-1 and D-2 were duly were never even found in the original records of the Rehabilitation Department, Government of thereupon been specifically denied by the concerned Naib Tehsildar i.e. Umrao Singh while appearing as PW- Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeal was required to be I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants. In the present case, right from inception, the original allotment of subject land in favour of Amar Nath has nowhere been disputed or denied by defendant Nos.1 to 3 either in their written or even while appearing in the witness box. Further, the in the form of Jamabandis Exs.P8 to P16 which carry the names of Amar Nath and Mangat Ram in the column of ownership have been rightly relied upon by the Courts below as corroborative piece of evidence in favour of 8 by PW4 Amarjit Kumar O/o Director, Land Records, Punjab besides, the fully established on record. He also submits that the entries of allotment were duly i.e. the subsequent jamabandis and thus, they lenge to Amar Nath. Learned counsel also submits that 2 were duly were never even found in the ment of been specifically denied by - Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeal was required to be for the parties and gone book. I am unable to find substance in the In the present case, right from inception, the original nowhere been written , the in the form of Jamabandis Exs.P8 to P16 which carry and relied upon in favour of TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.06.02 13:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-104-2021 respondent Nos.1 and 2. father of plaintiff has subject land in the jamabandis was thus, more than sufficient to plaintiff towards the allotment in-interest, namely the Urdu translation of P-4 was not proved on record could not be when the own case set up by defendant Nos.1 to 3 was that the allotment of suit from Amar Nath, thus factually the allotment in favour of Amar Nath was even admitted and therefore Furthermore, no interference is even called for concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below whereby, documents Exs.D allotment in favour of the pre 15.07.1976 followed by its Nos.1 to 3 on 03.09.1976 were held to be false, forged and fabricated as the same were never found Rehabilitation Department of Government of Punjab as per deposition of PW-4 Amarjeet Kumar, Sr. Assistant, Office of Land Records, Jalandhar who effect that no record pertaining to Nath was found in the original records of the Rehabilitation Department. Moreover, the documents Exs.D 2021 (O&M) respondent Nos.1 and 2. In fact, Mangat Ram who of plaintiff has been continuously recorded in the jamabandis proved on record as Exs.P more than sufficient to establish plaintiff towards the allotment of suit land in favour of namely, Amar Nath. In such circumstances, mere fact that the Urdu translation of original allotment documents Exs. P not proved on record through some accredited Urdu translator be considered fatal to the cause of the plaintiff, particularly when the own case set up by defendant Nos.1 to 3 was that the suit land was made in their favour upon its cancellation from Amar Nath, thus factually the allotment in favour of Amar Nath was ed and therefore, not in dispute. Furthermore, no interference is even called for concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below whereby, documents Exs.D-1 and D-2 which allegedly relate to the cancellation of allotment in favour of the predecessor-in 15.07.1976 followed by its fresh allotment in the name of defendant Nos.1 to 3 on 03.09.1976 were held to be false, forged and fabricated as the same were never found forming part of the original records of the bilitation Department of Government of Punjab as per deposition 4 Amarjeet Kumar, Sr. Assistant, Office of Land Records, Jalandhar who specifically deposed in his examination no record pertaining to the cancellation of al Nath was found in the original records of the Rehabilitation Department. Moreover, the documents Exs.D-1 and D-2 as relied upon by defendant 9 In fact, Mangat Ram who happened to be the been continuously recorded as owner of the proved on record as Exs.P-8 to P-16 and establish the case pleaded by the in favour of his predecessor- such circumstances, mere fact that documents Exs. P-2, P-3 and through some accredited Urdu translator the cause of the plaintiff, particularly when the own case set up by defendant Nos.1 to 3 was that the land was made in their favour upon its cancellation from Amar Nath, thus factually the allotment in favour of Amar Nath was not in dispute. Furthermore, no interference is even called for to the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below whereby, 2 which allegedly relate to the cancellation of in-interest of the plaintiff on allotment in the name of defendant Nos.1 to 3 on 03.09.1976 were held to be false, forged and fabricated part of the original records of the bilitation Department of Government of Punjab as per deposition 4 Amarjeet Kumar, Sr. Assistant, Office of Land Records, in his examination-in-chief to the cancellation of allotment of Amar Nath was found in the original records of the Rehabilitation Department. 2 as relied upon by defendant 9 happened to be the as owner of the 16 and the case pleaded by the - such circumstances, mere fact that 3 and through some accredited Urdu translator the cause of the plaintiff, particularly when the own case set up by defendant Nos.1 to 3 was that the land was made in their favour upon its cancellation from Amar Nath, thus factually the allotment in favour of Amar Nath was to the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below whereby, 2 which allegedly relate to the cancellation of interest of the plaintiff on allotment in the name of defendant Nos.1 to 3 on 03.09.1976 were held to be false, forged and fabricated part of the original records of the bilitation Department of Government of Punjab as per deposition 4 Amarjeet Kumar, Sr. Assistant, Office of Land Records, to the lotment of Amar Nath was found in the original records of the Rehabilitation Department. 2 as relied upon by defendant TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.06.02 13:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-104-2021 Nos.1 to 3 in their favour Umrao Singh being Naib Teh by the plaintiff and refused to admit or identify documents; in such circumstances, once the documents Exs.D thereupon, defendan same by examining handwriting expert. documents about cancellation of allotment to Amar Nath and fresh allotment in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were rightly held to be forged and fabricated one. 11. Additionally, no interference is even called for with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Cour rapat entry No.182 dated 22.11.2024 entered in the roznamcha revenue, Village Sahib made by the Patwari was n order passed by any of the competent authority was ever produced or proved on record from the side of defendant Nos.1 to 3 preceding the said roznamcha ent null and void. Further, the argument raised on behalf of appellants to the effect that decree for joint possession could not have been granted in favour of plaintiff by the Civil Court in the wake of de him in his affidavit of examination the effect that the land in question was given Singh-defendant No.1, Gurdit Singh Singh son of Kartar Singh by h cannot be permitted to raise any such argument as no such submission 2021 (O&M) Nos.1 to 3 in their favour visibly and apparently rao Singh being Naib Tehsildar, Patiala who by the plaintiff and refused to admit or identify documents; in such circumstances, once the documents Exs.D-1 and D-2 happened to deny his signatures defendant Nos.1 to 3 were at least required to prove the same by examining handwriting expert. In the absence thereof, the documents about cancellation of allotment to Amar Nath and fresh allotment in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were rightly held to be and fabricated one. Additionally, no interference is even called for with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Cour at entry No.182 dated 22.11.2024 entered in the roznamcha revenue, Village Karimpura, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib made by the Patwari was not a valid entry as no document or order passed by any of the competent authority was ever produced or proved on record from the side of defendant Nos.1 to 3 preceding the said roznamcha entry and thus, the same was rightly held to be illegal, . Further, the argument raised on behalf of appellants to the effect that decree for joint possession could not have been granted in favour of plaintiff by the Civil Court in the wake of de him in his affidavit of examination-in-chief while appearing as PW the effect that the land in question was given defendant No.1, Gurdit Singh-defendant No.2 and Shi Singh son of Kartar Singh by his father has no merit cannot be permitted to raise any such argument as no such submission 10 apparently bear signatures of one sildar, Patiala who was examined as PW-2 by the plaintiff and refused to admit or identify his signatures on these documents; in such circumstances, once the executant of the 2 happened to deny his signatures t Nos.1 to 3 were at least required to prove the In the absence thereof, the documents about cancellation of allotment to Amar Nath and fresh allotment in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were rightly held to be Additionally, no interference is even called for with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below to the effect that at entry No.182 dated 22.11.2024 entered in the roznamcha Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh ot a valid entry as no document or order passed by any of the competent authority was ever produced or proved on record from the side of defendant Nos.1 to 3 preceding the and thus, the same was rightly held to be illegal, . Further, the argument raised on behalf of appellants to the effect that decree for joint possession could not have been granted in favour of plaintiff by the Civil Court in the wake of deposition made by chief while appearing as PW-1 to the effect that the land in question was given on Batai in favour of Ajit defendant No.2 and Shingara has no merit. The appellants cannot be permitted to raise any such argument as no such submission 10 one 2 his signatures on these of the 2 happened to deny his signatures t Nos.1 to 3 were at least required to prove the In the absence thereof, the documents about cancellation of allotment to Amar Nath and fresh allotment in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were rightly held to be Additionally, no interference is even called for with the ow to the effect that at entry No.182 dated 22.11.2024 entered in the roznamcha Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh ot a valid entry as no document or order passed by any of the competent authority was ever produced or proved on record from the side of defendant Nos.1 to 3 preceding the and thus, the same was rightly held to be illegal, . Further, the argument raised on behalf of appellants to the effect that decree for joint possession could not have been granted position made by 1 to r of Ajit ara . The appellants cannot be permitted to raise any such argument as no such submission TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.06.02 13:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-104-2021 was ever raised before either of the Courts below. Moreover, no such pleadings were there in the plaint tehai through the father of the plaintiff as such, examination-in be ignored being beyond pleadings pleaded by defendant Nos.1 to 3 nor even was reflected through the revenue record available on the file behalf of the appellants to the effect that the suit filed at the instance of appellants was barred by limitation besides being not maintainable on account of misjoinder of necessary parties were liable to be rejected as the father of the plaintiff namely Mangat Ram was recorded to be owner of the property in question right from Jamabandi 2006-07 (Exs.P 12. Moreover, in case wherein, Exs.D documents being not forming Rehabilitation Department, Government of Punjab, the actual cause of action arose in favour of plaintiff/respondent No.1 entry of Rapat No.182 dated 22.11.2004 by the Halqa Patwari suit in hand which was filed on 16.02.2008 by limitation especially when the same was based on title. Furthermore, the plea raise owner of the property in question by way of adverse possession is also liable to be rejected being dev or evidence it has nowhere been pleaded or established that from which date/year their possession became adverse to that of 2021 (O&M) was ever raised before either of the Courts below. Moreover, no such were there in the plaint of the suit land being under Batai ough the father of the plaintiff as such, in-chief which travelled beyond the plaint was required to be ignored being beyond pleadings especially, when no such case was pleaded by defendant Nos.1 to 3 nor even was reflected through the revenue record available on the file. Lastly, the argument raised on behalf of the appellants to the effect that the suit filed at the instance of nts was barred by limitation besides being not maintainable on account of misjoinder of necessary parties were liable to be rejected as the father of the plaintiff namely Mangat Ram was recorded to be owner of the property in question right from Jamabandi 07 (Exs.P-8 to P-16). Moreover, in the facts and circumstances case wherein, Exs.D-1 and D-2 were held to be forged and fabricated documents being not forming part of the original record of the tion Department, Government of Punjab, the actual cause of action arose in favour of plaintiff/respondent No.1 entry of Rapat No.182 dated 22.11.2004 by the Halqa Patwari which was filed on 16.02.2008 by limitation especially when the same was based on title. Furthermore, the plea raised on behalf of the appellant owner of the property in question by way of adverse possession is also liable to be rejected being devoid of merits as in the entire proceedings or evidence it has nowhere been pleaded or established that from which date/year their possession became adverse to that of 11 was ever raised before either of the Courts below. Moreover, no such of the suit land being under Batai ough the father of the plaintiff as such, any deposition even in chief which travelled beyond the plaint was required to especially, when no such case was pleaded by defendant Nos.1 to 3 nor even was reflected through the . Lastly, the argument raised on behalf of the appellants to the effect that the suit filed at the instance of nts was barred by limitation besides being not maintainable on account of misjoinder of necessary parties were liable to be rejected as the father of the plaintiff namely Mangat Ram was recorded to be owner of the property in question right from Jamabandi for the year 1958-59 till and circumstances of the present held to be forged and fabricated part of the original record of the tion Department, Government of Punjab, the actual cause of action arose in favour of plaintiff/respondent No.1 only on the basis of entry of Rapat No.182 dated 22.11.2004 by the Halqa Patwari and thus, which was filed on 16.02.2008 cannot be held to be barred by limitation especially when the same was based on title. Furthermore, on behalf of the appellants that they have became owner of the property in question by way of adverse possession is also oid of merits as in the entire proceedings or evidence it has nowhere been pleaded or established that from which date/year their possession became adverse to that of 11 was ever raised before either of the Courts below. Moreover, no such of the suit land being under Batai deposition even in chief which travelled beyond the plaint was required to especially, when no such case was pleaded by defendant Nos.1 to 3 nor even was reflected through the . Lastly, the argument raised on behalf of the appellants to the effect that the suit filed at the instance of nts was barred by limitation besides being not maintainable on account of misjoinder of necessary parties were liable to be rejected as the father of the plaintiff namely Mangat Ram was recorded to be owner 59 till of the present held to be forged and fabricated part of the original record of the tion Department, Government of Punjab, the actual cause of only on the basis of and thus, eld to be barred by limitation especially when the same was based on title. Furthermore, became owner of the property in question by way of adverse possession is also oid of merits as in the entire proceedings or evidence it has nowhere been pleaded or established that from which date/year their possession became adverse to that of TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.06.02 13:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-104-2021 owner/allottees/predecessor Even no such is Courts below, as such at this belated stage they were raising any such plea. Additionally, the suit cannot be held to be not maintainable on the ground of non of impleadment of Rehabilitation Department or even all the co of the suit land especially, when no relief was claimed by the plaintiff against Rehabilitation Department and as per settled any one co-sharer can file suit for po Moreover, the judgment cited on behalf of appellants do not support their cause as in case of “ Pradhan and Others Hon’ble Supreme Court is to t records do not confer title, however, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the revenue entries in the form of jamabandis Exs.P to P-16 have merely been relied upon having corroborative value to the indirect admission made on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 3 wherein, it has been pleaded that the allotment made in favour of Amar Nath was cancelled in the year 1976 and thereafter, reallotment was ordered in their name besides the allotment documents in the predecessor produced as Exs. P Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “ given facts as in the said case, the ouster of plaintiff’s possession happened in 1971 whereas, the suit was filed in the year 1984 and hence, it was held to be barred by limitation whereas, in the present 2021 (O&M) owner/allottees/predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff/respondent No.1. Even no such issue was ever pressed by the appellants before the Courts below, as such at this belated stage they were raising any such plea. Additionally, the suit cannot be held to be not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties for of impleadment of Rehabilitation Department or even all the co of the suit land especially, when no relief was claimed by the plaintiff against Rehabilitation Department and as per settled sharer can file suit for possession regarding the joint land. Moreover, the judgment cited on behalf of appellants do not support their cause as in case of “Suraj Bhan Pradhan and Others” (supra), the exposition of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is to the effect that the entries in the revenue records do not confer title, however, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the revenue entries in the form of jamabandis Exs.P 16 have merely been relied upon having corroborative value to the indirect admission made on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 3 wherein, it has been pleaded that the allotment made in favour of Amar Nath was cancelled in the year 1976 and thereafter, reallotment was ordered in their name besides the allotment documents in the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff produced as Exs. P-2 to P-4. Furthermore, the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “Ramiah” (supra) could not apply to the given facts as in the said case, the ouster of plaintiff’s possession happened in 1971 whereas, the suit was filed in the year 1984 and hence, it was held to be barred by limitation whereas, in the present 12 interest of the plaintiff/respondent No.1. sue was ever pressed by the appellants before the Courts below, as such at this belated stage they were estopped from raising any such plea. Additionally, the suit cannot be held to be not joinder of necessary parties for want of impleadment of Rehabilitation Department or even all the co-sharers of the suit land especially, when no relief was claimed by the plaintiff against Rehabilitation Department and as per settled proposition of law ssession regarding the joint land. Moreover, the judgment cited on behalf of appellants do not Suraj Bhan” (supra) and “Prahlad (supra), the exposition of law made by the he effect that the entries in the revenue records do not confer title, however, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the revenue entries in the form of jamabandis Exs.P-8 16 have merely been relied upon having corroborative value to the indirect admission made on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 3 wherein, it has been pleaded that the allotment made in favour of Amar Nath was cancelled in the year 1976 and thereafter, reallotment was ordered in their name besides the allotment documents in favour of Amar Nath i.e. interest of the plaintiff-respondent No.1. been 4. Furthermore, the decision rendered by the (supra) could not apply to the given facts as in the said case, the ouster of plaintiff’s possession happened in 1971 whereas, the suit was filed in the year 1984 and hence, it was held to be barred by limitation whereas, in the present 12 interest of the plaintiff/respondent No.1. sue was ever pressed by the appellants before the stopped from raising any such plea. Additionally, the suit cannot be held to be not want sharers of the suit land especially, when no relief was claimed by the plaintiff position of law Moreover, the judgment cited on behalf of appellants do not Prahlad (supra), the exposition of law made by the he effect that the entries in the revenue records do not confer title, however, in the facts and circumstances of 8 16 have merely been relied upon having corroborative value to the indirect admission made on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 3 wherein, it has been pleaded that the allotment made in favour of Amar Nath was cancelled in the year 1976 and thereafter, reallotment was ordered in favour of Amar Nath i.e. been 4. Furthermore, the decision rendered by the (supra) could not apply to the given facts as in the said case, the ouster of plaintiff’s possession happened in 1971 whereas, the suit was filed in the year 1984 and hence, it was held to be barred by limitation whereas, in the present TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.06.02 13:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-104-2021 case, the entries m continuously recorded Mangat Ram i.e. the father of plaintiff No.1 to be the owner of the suit property and thus, the ouster of respondent No.1 or any of his predecessor was never established on record by the appellants. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of to the rescue of appellants as in the present case, neither the plea of adverse possession was specifically raised nor pressed at the framing of issues. The defendants even did not plead any overt act on their part to oust respondent Nos.1 and 2. 13. Accordingly, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, finding no illegality or perversity with the concurrent findi fact recorded by the Courts below material available on record; being impermissible, the present appeal being devoid of merits is thus, dismissed. 23.05.2025 Tejwinder 2021 (O&M) case, the entries made in the jamabandies Exs.P continuously recorded Mangat Ram i.e. the father of plaintiff No.1 to be the owner of the suit property and thus, the ouster of respondent No.1 or any of his predecessor was never established on he appellants. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Ravinder Kaur Grewal” to the rescue of appellants as in the present case, neither the plea of adverse possession was specifically raised nor pressed at the framing of issues. The defendants even did not plead any overt act on their part to oust respondent Nos.1 and 2. Accordingly, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, finding no illegality or perversity with the concurrent findi fact recorded by the Courts below, there being no overlooking of th material available on record; re-appreciation of pleadings and evidence being impermissible, the present appeal being devoid of merits is thus, (HAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 13 ade in the jamabandies Exs.P-8 to P-16 continuously recorded Mangat Ram i.e. the father of plaintiff-respondent No.1 to be the owner of the suit property and thus, the ouster of respondent No.1 or any of his predecessor was never established on he appellants. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme “Ravinder Kaur Grewal” (supra) even does not come to the rescue of appellants as in the present case, neither the plea of adverse possession was specifically raised nor pressed at the time of framing of issues. The defendants even did not plead any overt act on Accordingly, in view of the detailed discussion made herein- above, finding no illegality or perversity with the concurrent findings of there being no overlooking of the appreciation of pleadings and evidence being impermissible, the present appeal being devoid of merits is thus, (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No 13 16 respondent No.1 to be the owner of the suit property and thus, the ouster of respondent No.1 or any of his predecessor was never established on he appellants. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme (supra) even does not come to the rescue of appellants as in the present case, neither the plea of time of framing of issues. The defendants even did not plead any overt act on - ngs of e appreciation of pleadings and evidence being impermissible, the present appeal being devoid of merits is thus, TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.06.02 13:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document