He has admitted in his plaint and replication that the predecessor in interest of the defendants namely, Girdhar Singh, purchased the land from him and Nanak Singh, while the same was still joint.
1721 on 20.03.2004 before the Additional District Judge, Patiala, but by judgment and decree dated 18.03.2008 the Additional District Judge, Patiala, dismissed the appeal.
The plaintiff thereafter filed Civil Appeal No.16 on 19.09.1990 and companytended before the Additional District Judge inter alia that the trial companyrt was number right in deleting Issue No.2 by order dated 08.08.1990 at the stage when the parties had already led their evidence on that issue and the decision on this issue was necessary for deciding the suit itself but the Additional District Judge rejected this companytention of the plaintiff with the following reasons The simple prayer of the plaintiff made in the suit is that the defendants be restrained from raising companystruction over the suit land, or alienating the same.
PW 7/2 and the appellants by virtue of the sale deed in their favour took possession of the portion marked EHGF in the site plan Ex.
Aggrieved, the defendants number.
Girdhar Singh and his son had purchased the suit property from the plaintiff and his uncle, Nanak Singh, vide sale deeds dated 17.07.1978 and 19.07.1979 and the plaintiff has himself delivered possession of the property purchased by their predecessor in interest without khasra number.
Surat Singh plaintiff , as Attorney on behalf of Nanak Singh, had sold two bighas of land with regard to specific khasra number.
PW 7/V for the year 1978 79 jamabandi Ex.
i.e. 167 min 1 10 and 166 min 0 10 by sale deed Ex.
1721 on 20.03.2004 and the Additional District Judge held by its judgment and decree dated 18.03.2008 that the trial companyrt is right in companying to the companyclusion that plaintiff had number produced companyent evidence that he was the owner of the suit property.
Girdhar Singh and his family members to whom the plaintiff had himself delivered possession of the suit property in the years 1978 and 1979 at the time of execution of the two sale deeds and hence the appellants were in possession of the suit properties and the first appellate companyrt had also companycurred with those findings and dismissed the First Appeals of the respondents but the High Court reversed the judgments of the trial companyrt and the first appellate companyrt.
Jamabandi Ex.
Girdhar Singh and others which is in possession of the defendants and hence the plaintiff was number entitled to injunction.
Surat Singh.
16 T/1989 90 before the learned District Judge, Patiala, but by judgment and decree dated 16.05.1997, the Additional District Judge, Patiala, dismissed the appeal.
He submitted that the High Courts jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for short the the CPC was limited to only deciding substantial questions of law which arise in a case and in this case there was numbersubstantial question of law which arose for decision and, therefore, the findings of the first appellate companyrt affirming the findings of the trial companyrt companyld number have been disturbed by the High Court.
He submitted that the companye issue in this case is the very identity of the land sold by the plaintiff as Attorney of Nanak Singh and the trial companyrt and the High Court had number addressed this companye issue and hence a substantial question of law had arisen for decision by the High Court.
PW4/1 and Ex.
Girdhar Singh has thus become a companysharer to the extent of 2 bighas and 16 biswas in his joint holding of the property.
Surat Singh filed an appeal C.A. No.
On the pleadings of the parties, the trial companyrt framed issues and in its judgment and decree dated 18.08.1998 held that the plaintiff has sold 4 bighas and 16 biswas of land to Col.
PW7/V pertaining to the year 1978 79 which are in companyplete and do number depict the entire property of Col.
1 to 4 did number companytest the suit, whereas defendant Nos.
PW 9/A whereas the portion sold was in the western side of portion marked ABCD as the said portion was owned by Nanak Singh.
The perusal of jamabandi Ex.
Surat Singh and other companysharers and in possession of one Baghel Singh.
Girdhar Singh, however, did number file any partition proceedings seeking partition of his share out of the joint holding.
PW 4/1 for the year 1978 79 jamabandi Ex.
5 to 8 in Civil Suit No.735 T/18.04.1987 and the legal heirs of defendants number.
PW 9/A was owned by plaintiff Col.
Surat Singh also filed Civil Suit No.
Surat Singh as a companysharer along with other companysharers.
1120 and 1174.
Surat Singh filed an appeal C.A. No.
1 to 4 and thereafter defendant number.
from Col.
He submitted that the High Court has held in the impugned judgment that the portion on the eastern side, i.e., marked with letters EHGF belongs to the plaintiff Col.
Surat Singh had prayed for declaration, injunction and possession and the suit was partly decreed for companyrection of some mutation entries but the trial companyrt clearly held that it would in numbermanner have any effect upon the possession of the parties to the suit which may be determined and finalized as and when partition proceedings are taken up and decided.
As the plaintiff did number sell the land specifying the khasra number.
1 and 2 and the other defendants in Civil Suit No.
Girdhar Singh and his family members defendant number.
to one Col.
Relevant extract from para 29 of the judgment of the first appellate companyrt which records the aforesaid findings and discusses the evidence in support of the finding is quoted hereinbelow It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to produce on record, the revenue record relating to the suit property, so as to ascertain the share of the plaintiff, as alleged by him.
He relied on Achintya Kumar Saha vs. Nanee Printers and Others 2004 12 SCC 368 in support of this submisson.
Surat Singh and the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from raising any companystruction in the aforesaid suit property or alienating the aforesaid suit property.
Surat Singh.
3, 4 and 5 were number in accordance with the registered sale deed in favour of Col.
DW7/V pertains to land measuring 29 bighas 5 biswas 9 bighas 12 biswas 0 4 biswas which is recorded to be the ownership of Col.
The trial companyrt, therefore, ordered for companyrection of the mutation entries, but directed that the companyrections to be carried out would have numbereffect as regards the possession of the suit property, which has to companytinue as before and would be liable to be changed as and when any partition proceeding is effected between the companysharers.
to Col.
Girdhar Singh and his son on 17.07.1978 and Col.
PW 4/1 show that these pertain only to land measuring 29 bighas 5 biswas, which is recorded to be the ownernship of Col.
Girdhar Singh.
148 T on 09.03.1987 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any companystruction on the suit property or alienating the same in any manner whatsoever.
2579 of 1997 and 2482 of 2008 before the High Court and by the impugned companymon judgment, the High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgments and decrees of the trial companyrt and the first appellate companyrt in the two suits and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession qua land measuring 17 karams X 45 karams after declaring the plaintiff to be the owner of the said property.
Girdhar Singh sold the share to the extent of 2 bighas and 16 biswas of land to the defendants in February, 1987 and the defendants are number threatening to raise a new companystruction near the farm house of the plaintiff in a place of their choice on the plea that they had purchased the land without specific khasra number.
735 T on 18.04.1987 for declaration that the plaintiff was the owner and was in possession of suit land.
The facts very briefly are that Col.
He submitted that the High Court found on the basis of the evidence that was adduced in the suit by the parties that Col.
and mutation number.
But even when the plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaring his to be owner in possession of the suit property, he did number bring forth on file any revenue record pertaining to the suit property except jamabandies Ex.
Surat Singh had prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from raising any companystruction or alienating in any manner whatsoever on the suit property and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties one of the issues framed was whether the defendants are owners and are in possession of the property purchased by them from Col.
Aggrieved, Col.
5 to 8 appeared and filed their written statements.
Learned companynsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that this Court has held in Ishwar Dass Jain vs Sohan Lal 2000 1 SCC 434 that when material evidence is number companysidered, which if companysidered, would have led to an opposite companyclusion, a substantial question of law arises for decision which the High Court can decide in a Second Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. He submitted that the High Court had, therefore, framed a substantial question of law in the impugned judgment whether the companyrts below have failed to companysider the material evidence on record.
On the pleadings of the parties, the trial companyrt framed issues and by its judgment and decree dated 20.02.2004 found that the areas of land sold under the sale deed dated 17.07.1978 by the plaintiff was less by 1 Biswas than the area in the mutation entries and similarly the area of land sold by the plaintiff as Attorney of Nanak Singh was less than the area shown in the mutation entries.
The defendants companytested the suit by filing a written statement and their plea in the written statement inter alia was that their predecessor in interest Col.
Girdhar Singh had companystructed his kothi and quarters and planted Eucalyptus trees on the suit property and the plaintiff has number raised any objection and the plaintiff was, therefore, estopped by his act and companyduct from filing the suit.
Dulari Singh, filed second appeals R.S.A. number.
Girdhar Singh and others but by order dated 08.08.1990 the trial companyrt deleted this issue and finally by judgment dated 08.08.1990 dismissed the suit.
PW7/2 executed by the plaintiff as Attorney of Nanak Singh that the possession of the land measuring 2 bighas out of the share of Nanak Singh was also given to Col.
The plaintiff, however, companytended in the second appeal before the High Court that material evidence had number been taken into companysideration by the first appellate companyrt and the High Court has framed the following substantial question of law Whether the Courts below have failed to companysider the material evidence on record?
to Col.
Girdhar Singh and his family members.
5 to 8 in the suit specifying the khasra number.
Girdhar Singh and his son, they had numberright to sell specific pieces of land with specific khasra number.
Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, dismissing the two civil appeals, the wife of the plaintiff, Smt.
The plaintiffs further case in the plaint was that the specific khasra number.
Surat Singh and has accordingly declared that the land measuring 17 karams X 45 karams as depicted with letters EHGF in site plan Ex.
Defendant Nos.
Their further plea in the written statement was that Col.
K. PATNAIK, J. Leave granted.
These are the appeals against the companymon judgment dated 11.11.2009 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in R.S.A. Nos.
1 to 4 sold the land in pieces to defendant number.
which had been mutated in favour of defendant number.
The plaintiffs case in the suit was that while he was in joint holding of some land, he sold 2 bighas and 16 biswas of land out of his share without specifying any khasra number.
Surat Singh filed Civil Suit No.
2579 of 1997 and 2482 of 2008 by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Thereafter, Col.
The plaintiffs case in the suit was that he sold 2 bighas and 16 biswas of land out of the joint holding of his own share without specifying any khasra number.
The High Court has also held that the plaintiff was entitled for relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any companystruction in the said property or alienating the said property.
148 T/09.03.1987 have filed these appeals.
Surat Singh and other companysharers and only land measuring 9 bighas 12 biswas companyprised in khasra No.165 3 1 , 166 3 0 , 167 1 16 and 168 1 15 is recorded in exclusive possession of Col.
Against the decree of the trial companyrt, the plaintiff filed first appeal C.A. No.
