Judgment:
Rs.No.396 of 2012 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.396 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 1.7.2014 Smt.
Jas Rani .Appellant v.
Vijay Kumar and another .Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.Vishal Munjal, Advocate for Mr.Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant..Rajesh Bindal J.
The plaintiff is before this court impugning the judgments and decrees of both the courts below, whereby the suit filed by her for declaration to the effect that she is owner in possession of the land measuring one kanal contained in Khewat No.233, Khatoni No.417 and comprised in KhaSr.No.188 with permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into her possession, was dismissed.
The plaintiff based her claim on the basis of a sale deed dated 9.7.1993 (Ex.
P1) executed in her favour by Harjit Singh and Kewal Singh.
She further claimed that there is another sale deed dated 24.2.1994 (Ex.
P2) executed by Babita wife of Gurdarshan Kumar to the extent of 1/3rd share and Gurdarshan Kumar to the extent of 2/3rd share pertaining to the land measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas in favour of the appellant, who is mother-in- law and mother, respectively of the vendORS.The appellant-plaintiff claimed that she had got the possession of the property in dispute from Pushpa Devi, who was recorded in possession thereof, hence, her ownership and possession over the property in dispute deserve to be protected.
Kumar Manoj 2014.07.10 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Rs.No.396 of 2012 [2].Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the pleas raised by the appellant before the courts below, as have been noticed above.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find that any ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below.
The appellant, in the present case, is seeking to protect her possession with respect to one kanal of land comprised in khata No.233/417, KhaSr.No.188 min as per jamabandi for the year 1987-88, sale-deed for which was registered on 9.7.1993.
However, as has been noticed by the courts below, khaSr.No.188 is quite big having an area to the extent of 205 kanals and 13 marlas.
Neither dimensions nor the boundaries have been given in the sale deed.
The property has not even been identified with reference to what is located on its four sides.
There is another sale deed dated 24.2.1994 (Ex.
P2) pertaining to one kanal and 10 marlas of land, which was got registered by Babita and Gurdarshan Kumar in favour of the appellant pertaining to same khaSr.number.
KhaSr.No.188 min is abadi deh, as is recorded in the jamabandi for the year 1987-88.
Harjit Singh, who is claimed to be the vendor of one kanal of land to the appellant vide sale deed dated 9.7.1993 appeared as PW2.
In his cross- examination, he stated that he cannot produce any document of title with respect to the land sold by him to the appellant as he had not purchased the same from any person.
He claimed the land to be ancestral.
There is no material on record to show that vendors to the appellant were in possession of the land in dispute, which was handed over to her after registration of the sale deed.
The appellant had claimed that she got possession from one Pushpa Devi, who was in recorded possession.
As per the revenue record produced, Pushpa Devi was shown to be recorded as gair marusi, whereas the land was described as banjar kadim.
Though she filed affidavit, but merely stated that she had delivered the possession of one kanal land.
The affidavit is silent with regard to the person to whom the possession was delivered, the location and the boundaries as well as the date on which the possession was handed over.
In fact, Pushpa Devi was not found to be in possession of the property, as is evident from the judgment of Civil Court in Civil Suit No.524 of 1989, titled as “Vijay Kumar v.
Pushpa Devi”.
decided Kumar Manoj 2014.07.10 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Rs.No.396 of 2012 [3].on 3.1.1996 (Ex.
D4).wherein the court opined that Pushpa Devi was not in possession and the suit filed by Vijay Kumar for permanent injunction protecting his possession was decreed.
Even the appeal filed by Pushpa Devi was dismissed on 8.4.1999 (Ex.
D5).Once Pushpa Devi herself was not found to be in possession of the suit property, there was no question of delivery thereof to the appellant.
The aforesaid material available on record, in terms of which the appellant could not establish her possession on the land in dispute even if there are sale deeds executed in her favour, the property has not been properly identified, I do not find that any illegality has been committed by the courts below in dismissing the suit filed by her.
No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.
Dismissed.
Consequently, the accompanying applications are also dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 1.7.2014 mk Kumar Manoj 2014.07.10 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document