4

Jl
4 4
1

C2
eeeew
1J
11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND IRYANA AT CNDIGARHe

1

ReGeAe NOe of 19 0
State of Punjab

ee eAppellant

VerSUS e

ShKulwant Rai

eeeRespondente

INDEX e

SreNOe Particulars Dated Pases

eeeeeeeeeeeeee eeee e e e e e e e e e e e e

le Gnounds of Appeal 1m2

2 Memo of Parties 3

3e Copy of Judgment 25 7 19890 412

AddleDistt Judge Patialal

0

4 Copy of Grounds of Appeal 2811068 1315

lAddleDisttJudge Patialal
5e Copy of Decree Sheete 2570890 1617

AddlDistteJudge Patiala

6 Copy of Judgment 17e100880 1330

4AddleSenior Sub Judge Nabh

e e e eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee4eeeeeeee

EHANDIGARHe

NITED GOVERNMENT PLDER PUNJAB

044

Suresh Kumar
2014.07.03 11:54
Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh
 b
1 L
1 4
2 Il
1
1
4
1
m1 26557HC200001e87Govt Press U T Chd

KClDIA2 1
L 1
1

Sheetfor Civtl
1 1j 1

n the Court of Ptljaband at

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Y
e

R5l4 1916e
8
a a 1

lIUIT
OIUGINAL FmsT APPEAL 100 e2
5 8
E
8
e4

4T2 5 Z
a a
ec 0
Intitituted Decided Imtituted Declded U t3
a0 1c
1
e
r 0
4a 6 r2 1
1
t1 c
04 0 0 2
w
e 04
5 n
8 U0
Court Date 04
Court Date Court Date Court Date 4 a
8
e a
O s 44
8 4S 0
S
8 r3 10
C3 4
8

0rl I V
1 U

Pe

1
8 7
1
1

1
Prosmted
by e P Name ofpilrtyAdvocate
flllngthePetitionl
1

or defendantl 7
Plai n
Plaintif or defen Rnl
1
Orderof thc first Court and date y 17 Ico88
AppellateCourt si RT 7L 9r794 1
and date

Contlrming
reversing
or m04ifying 1 1

L LIJ 71
G
r

cltlim
Original 91 0
e

eeem eweeveee

Le 711
1y 2
12IaLerel
Pr J
ly
Iel
1

PetitionunderSection
Itl
Il
01
V
Suresh Kumar
2014.07.03 11:54 Prlce 20 Paise
Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh
 1V 11

3
en

Grounds of Appeal
That the learned Appellate Court has mmmittod an

error in the eye of law in partly accepting the appeal fllsd

by thelaintifferespondet
2e That all the findingsecorded by the Appellate Curt
are based on mere and
surmisesconjectureswrong reasons

assumotlons and are thus not tenable in the eye of Iaw2

3 That the suit of tte plaintiff Was time barrede

4e That the suit of the plaintiff was not maintalnable

and as the plaintlff had no locus standl to file the suit

and State Governmt was the o4ner cfthe suit lant

k
8e That the findings on issue Nol
1
are 3
erroneousTho

Appellate Court has wrongly held that the plaintlff was the

owner
in possession of the psrt of the land in the suit
6 That the learndd lower Appellete Court hos wrongly

held ttet the plaintif6mspondent ls ownBr of S ksnale of

out of Khasra Noe346

7e That the Appellate Court has wrongly held that the

plaintiff isnot in possession of the land in dispute for

the last several yearse

It isthereforerespectfully prayed that the aooeal

be allowedthe judgment and decree of the Appellate Court be

set aside and tha suit of the pleintiffrespondent be

dismissed in totOe

Dt Covernment Pleader Punjsb

Suresh Kumar
2014.07.03 11:54
Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh

r
 1
5

4 1
0
1

d1

1 e

J
4R 4
9
IlJ 7
0

p 5 e
1

1 r

1 cO

r1 9
0
r i

l 1IC
e

CiD
Ii

47

Suresh Kumar
2014.07.03 11:54
Scanned True Copy of Original 41
PHHC,Chandigarh e

4
 t Il

j 1
5 t
1 1
rt
3
4 4

ln the High Court of Punj9b ond Haryem at Chsndiqrhe

4
e 4

RSAeNOe of
19O
Memoaof Parties
llr
4

The Stste of Punjabthrough the Colloctor of Petiel 9

trl

1 1 1
Patioh OibtrictPatialee 1

Appellant
C Ilersus

Shri Kulwant Rai son of Shri Tulsi Ram resident

nrv
04 ree

of Raja Narinder Singh StreetNabhaDistrict

Patisl8a
lr

4 6eRespondent
4
t
1

i1 n
rv
e
GovornmentPlnnder Punjab
1
1
11

1
r

1
1

1
1

VNV
4

Suresh Kumar 1
2014.07.03 11:54
1 Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh
jl
e

1
1 1
4
1
6
4
1

4 m1P
Ie

d r4
V IlIJ 1 1 den

rnr
1

1 rI
1

f 7 Y ev
4
r 1 r1
J
f 7 rr 7 r
3
J

0Or
r
le

rl r r r r1e

J re
1 rr

V42

n ln P
03

rJ
rtIl r lf
9 n
re4

1
71
b 11
TO 0y
FILRD TO DAy
71
6 20
JAN I90 1
1

DL e
l

1 0

1
9
E

It o
0
C 26J
41

UJO to41
64
1

1 r4
sc1 b r
041 41V1
e
J 2

C1r4
IIJ44 e

3 444 1

4 JL
Suresh Kumar
2014.07.03 11:54
1 Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh J

1
4
1 P
 Ir eJ
0 J 1
e r
0
7
6eeeme0ar e01
e

9 1
4
l4
Cepy of Judnentz t

In thd Court of Shri MLeSinghal

AddleOistrict Judge Patialae

4

CeAeNoe378of 30e4e88

Decided ons 2507e1989

Shri Kulwant Rai sonaf Shri Tulsi Ram resident mf

t
r
Raja Narinder Singh Street Nabha District Patiala
P 4

eeePlaintiffJappellante

Versos

lhe State ef Rlnjab though the Cellector of Patialae

Patiala Oistrict Patialas

1

1
1

1
APpeal under sectien 96 CePeCe against the 4

decree and judgmentof Shri Lakhbir Singh

PCSAdditienal Seni0r Sub JudgeNabha

1 dated 1701001988passed in suit Noe217 ef

p9
Il
3e51986e
e

OUOGEMENTs
e

1e Kulwant Rai Instituted suit against the tate sf

r
Punjab for declaration to the effact that he ls exclusive

ewnsr ln mf land
4
possessin representsd by Khewat N001976
Khateni Khasre Ne3462M as per jamabandie
1

ef 1980el and that the State ef Punjab has no cencern

P
with ite It isalleged in the plainthat by the
n

1 orders ef hs the Maharaja of tbha land measuring

Suresh Kumar 13 bighas 3 biswas re4presented by Khewat Noe171628135
i1 2014.07.03 11:54
Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh
khasraNoe852
85508128 alengwith share in shamlat Patti 0f Nabha
 8
3

e2 1

which measured 1 bigha10 biswas Pukhta belonging te

e

en Kalu sle JaWahar of Nabha was alleted seld by

resident

publlc euctien and it ws pUrchased by Salfg Ram 10

Charanji Mal uf Nabha for Rse10501 mJtation N00181was

sanctioned in favour of Salig Ram son of Charanjik Mall
0

auction purchaser on 2 Maghar 1973 8eKeMutatien of

inheritance ofsaid S8lig Ram was sanctiened vide mutation

Noe611in favaur ef his setrs and legal representatives

P

namely SmteRamRakhi widow 06 Modi Ramlias Madho Ram

Tulsi Ram and Pana Lal sons of Salig Ram in equal shares

alongwith share io shamlat patti on 16601986 SeKeOue to

overesight and mlstake the shamlat patti area measuring

1 bigha 10 biswas was loft eut in the initial nutatien and

then corrected wutation Noe615was enteredand sanctioned

in favour uf SmteRamRakhiTlsi Ram and Panna Lal alias

Balwant singh ef Nabha en 28e6e1986 BeKeSincs the data ef

ll

pJrchase the property has been in possessien ef the auctien

RJrchaser Shri Salig Ram alengwith share in the shamlat

pattie After his deathp the property has been in possession

of his Reirs ieee SmtRam Rakhi Tulsi Ram and Panna Lale

First ef all Ruldl Ram died and ha was succeeded by his 1

son Kulwant Rai Plaintiffe Panna Lal died without any

widow er child andle was succeeded by he plaintiffe Last

af 11 SmteRamRakhi di8d1 she was also succeede by the

plaintiff In this manner the plaintiff succeeded to th8

prop8rty of Salig Ram and is in possession ef the same as

ownere Plaintiff received not60s frem the defendant calling

Suresh Kumar un him tm wacate tha lnd represented by Khewat Noe1546 Min
2014.07.03 11:54 1
Khatsni Noe1930minKhasra
Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh
No34648e in FeSruary1985 out of
U 4

centceeeO t

Oo
a
 9 1

41
1

14 3

the said lande On inspactlng the records the plaintiff learnt

that mistake had taken place and the said khasra Noe346lad

been wroogly shown to be ewned by the Punjab Gevernment eOn

16e7e85 tho plaintiff sent Registered AD netice under sectien 80

CPC te Collecter Patiala Oistrict Patiala through his ceunsel

and requested him that he shuuld cerrect the revenue recerds

and show khasra No346 ta be owned and possessdd by the

plaintiffe

2e The defendanteRlnjabState contested the suit ef

1
Cl

the plaintlff urging thatle suit is tim barrede Suit is

net maintainable in the present ferme Plaintiff has no locus

standi te file the suite provincial Govteis owner of the

6

suit lande It was admitted thatshri SeliRam purchased

11 bigas 13 biswasof landU cemprised ln Khasra Noe852 Min018

1

853842p854minle 855012 in Rlblic Auotien for

Rsell5Ole It was denied that land measuring 1 bi9ha10 biswas

FUkhta was purchased out of thelamlat patti by Saliq Ram

1

111
pJblic auction as thereis nu entry in 1wtation Noel8l
4
1

sanctiened in favour of Shri Salig RamAuctien Rlrchasore

Land measuring 11 igas 13 biswas orchased by Salig Ra

remained in his possessieneAfter the death ef Salig Ram

1
tt his heirs remained in posssssion of the area purchaped by
Suresh Kumar
Salig
2014.07.03 11:54 Rame But thsy alse were not in possessien of tha
Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh

shamlat patti area maasuring 1 igha O biswase Plaintiff

 In

40
1

1
1
W 4

has n0 right everkhasra Noe346 which has been Hown

correctly in the revenue record in the name of the prbncialpal

1

Gevernmente

3e 40nthese pleadir ef th parties the fellowing

issues were framed by the trial ceurtsee

e

1
1e Whether the plaintiff is exclusiva Owner in

possession of the land in suit 70pp

r

2e eth t su is th ti 70PP0

3e Whether valid netice uls 80 CPC was

issued te the defendant 7OPPe 4

4e WhOther tho suit is nmt maintainable 9Qpo

5e Whether plaintiff has ne locus stand

to file the suit 90P00

6e Reliefe
1
4

t
4e shrirLakhbir SinghAddlesenier subordinate Oudge

Nabha decrbed the plaintiffs suit for declaratien to the

effect thatle is in possession of the land as detailed in

tha tieading efa tho plaint elthough hi possession is illegal

1

and unauthorisede In view f his findings that the plaintiff

is not the a67ner of this land and the defendant RJnjab

State is owner thereof the plaintiffs in possession

sf this land and his possessien is unauthorised and illsgale

1

1
1
Suresh Kumar
2014.07.03 11:545e Aggrievedfrom tis judgment aod decree dte17010e1988
Scanned True Copy of Original
1
PHHC,Chandigarh

passed by Lakhbir Singh Addle Senier SOberdfnate Judge

 41 1

0 r

5m
W has appeal te
NabhaKulwant Raiplaintlff come up in this
t
e

courte
t

6 have heard the learned ceunsel for the appellant

I
andGePe for the RJnjab State and hava gone through the

records Land measuring 11 bighas 13 blswas was plrchased

1

Ram in Rse10501 comprising

bySalig p81ic auction fer

in khasra

of
belenging
ta Kalu slo Jawahara eld underle ordere

11
his Maharaj of Nabha on 2 Maghar 1973 8KeTh8r8

lS nutatian ExeP7 No181 entered and sanctioned in

faveurof Salig RameSalig Ram died 11

and in his place his

heirs SmteRamRakhiwid of Medi Ram ias Madhe Rar

1 4

Tulsi Ram and Panna Lal sons of Sall9 Ram Ca8 and thore

1S
mutatlonNoe611 Exel to thi8 effette There is

nWtationNoe615 ExePe9p whereby the land measuri8gl bigha

10biswas of Shamlat Patti area was antered and sanctiooed

SmteRamRakhieetcehaGirs ame This

infaveurof of salig
1
4e
woUld not maksany difference as thess khasra numbers are already

includedini measuring 11 b6ghas 13 biswas 8khtauhich was

to 34 bighas and 19 bigwas kachhal ln Jamabandi ExeP10

r
J

landmdasuring 31 bighas 19 biswas Kachha was calculated

insteaduf 34 bighas 19 biswase In Jamabandixelll

Suresh Kumar fer the ysar 199394 BK there ia mention of 854 Mine Khasra
2014.07.03 11:54
Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh
number856 Min khasra number 857 min854 min together
4

contdee
 42

re6
Pa find mention with ar6a 481068e 954 Min measured

1 bigha 11 biss mltation Noel8l was sanctioned in favour

ef Slig Ramauction purchasere Kulwant Rai W stated

that Oewan Salig Ram was his grand fathere Land measuring

13 bigha 3 biswas Hlkhta was purchased by him atpublic

6

01
auction ls Natha State which included 1 bia 10 biswas

pukhta Shamlat Patti areaefkhta bigha is equivalent

to 3 bighas kachhae Mutation of inheritance of Salig

Op

Ramwassonctioned in favour of his fathetTulsi Ram

uncle Panna Mal and auntSmteRam Rakhie8y mistake

6

the area of Shamlat Patti ws 1aft out of ths initial

nutation which was later corrected by correctedemltation

rr

ln of the helrs af Salig RameDuringthelife

favour

time ofsalig Ram he was in possessien of the auctimned

e

propsrtye After his death the auctiened preperty

remained in possession ef his heirse Aftor Ram Rakhi

etce the auctioned prePerty vasted in him nd he is

in possession thereofe Oefendant state has never romained

in psssssin ofthe auctiened propsrtyeKhasra Noe346

enotes ths land in diputee Khasra Noe852853854

and 855 were purchasedby his grandfathere eir area

WRS 11 Bighas 13 Biswas Jkhtae Shamsher SinghField

Kanoonge NabhaeDWelhas stated that khasra Nos346 e

Suresh Kumar
2014.07.03 11:54
measuring 8 Kanals 2 marlas is
Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh
owned by the Previnc

Govtthrough Forast Departmente Previous numberof

 43 12

27
W 1

Khasra Noe346 was 1588e At the time of consolidation

Khasra Noe346 ws carved oute There was no Shamlat Patti

erea io Khasra Noe1588e There is no shamlat Patti

area in Khasra Noe346e Khasra Nue346 was never sold to

4

any body by the Proviscial GevteIt is ih possessiun of

the Forest DepartmsnteAs per mutation Noel8l no area of

Shamlat Patti was included in favour of Salig Rameere

is no mention in nutation Noe611 and 615 regarding the

plrc4aseof Shamlat Patti area by Salig RameNo stated

that as per wutation 1 Noe615 shamlat atti ara was represented

by Khasra Noe852855 Khasra N0e852855 was in possession of

Salig Ram oen of Chiranjl Lal and was mJtated in faur of

e

Salig Ram otce as ewners with possessiene As these mUtation

are old thsre is no mention of Khasra N0346 in these

In theear 198485 Bikrand the old khasra

852 Mln853854 and 855 were changed into nawkhasra

1

Nose at the time of Bandobast in the year 98485 For

the Bandobast of year 198485 of Nabha State there is jamabandi

for thS yeaar 198485 Bikrami io place of old Khasra Numhers

4

new khasra t0 1600 and 1589 to 1595 werechangede

Ouringthe onsolidatien the area situated within the

circular road of Nabha City was only tobe changed for being

Suresh Kumar
frem bighas and blsWase
1
2014.07.03 11:54show into kans and marlas
Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh
NowkhastaNumbers were to be assignsd and possession

contdee
 1 1

44
n1
Il
1

was not tu be disturbed In the Bandobast of 198485

r

in lieu of the are8 of 34 Bisbas19 8iswa8 Plkhtap area

1

rneasuring31 bighas 1biswas was allottede In khasra No

e

346 thereis no area uf shamlat patti as stated by Shri

Mohinder ingheffice As p8r ExPmllp

1

Jmabandi for the year 19931994 Bikrami khasra N0e1586 was

arved out in lisu of khasra Noe854Min measuring l Bighas 118

8 Min8 Min Oamaban ExePl19945 Bikra the ls

r

clsarmention of khasra NQe1586now and old 854 min857 Min

e
p

856 Mine In jamabandi ExiP12 1 place lof khasra N0e1588

old khasra Noe346 new is given measuring 8 Kanals 2 marlase

khasra N0e1586 was carvod out in lisu 0 Khasra Noe854 Min

857 Min856 Min int8 area measuring4 b1ghas 16bistjs khasra

1

Noe854Min was measuring 1 biga 11 biswas In other words

in khasra N0el5864 bighas 16 biswase I e bigha 0 biswas

1
1

of old khasra Noe854 Mln was includede In jamabandl

ExePrl6pKhasra No1586 is own to be measuring4 blghas

16 biswas khasra Noe346 carved out in lieu of khasra

N01588 shown in jamabandi for the year 196263 is wrong

4

In khatoni Istemal forthe year 195859 the area 8f khasra

No1588 is shown to be 1 bigha 16 biswas and on convstsion

it would mean 2 kanals 2 marlas er 2 kanalrs 3 marlase

f

Suresh Kumar As per this Istemal

khastent areas ef Khasra No1586 4
2014.07.03 11:54 1
Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh
bighas 16 biswase Area of Khasra N0e1588 cannot b
f
e1

10 kanals 4 milrlase It is thus elear that khasra Noe346

 45

W 9
0
4

was carved sut in lieu of old khasra N0e1586e In khasra

Nae1586the area of Khasra No854 Min 1 Bigha 0 Biswas

1
Il

3 bighaeObiswas kachha was includede Khasra Noe854 Min

4

was owned by Salig Ram In khasra N0e1586 some area of

khasra Noe857 Min and 846 Min waa also inclwdede In

4

khasra NO01586ieee new khasra Noe346 are measuring 1 bigha

pukhtaof khasra 854 Min ieee 5 Kanals was included which belongs

te Kulwant Raie It is thus clear that plaintiff is owner of 5 kanals

ef area eut of khasra Noe346 as detailed in tho headlng

the plainte

7
e
The plaintiff is in possession for the last J

sevsral lears ieee since the time of his grandfathere

Ile other point arese for my consideratione In view of what

I hav8 saidabove this appeal standsartly accepted and

lS
partly accepted
4
and the plaintiffeappellants suit is

decreed for declaration that he is exclusive owner in

S

pessessionof land measuridg 5 Kanals out of khewat No1974

khat0niNo263911 Khasra 198081

and the defendant has

1
no concern with ite No order as to

costae SdlwM el esinglil

Anneuncede AddleOistrict Judge

Suresh Kumar e
Oateds25e701989e
2014.07.03 11:54 0 Patiala
Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh

True copYe
 11

46

Copy of Grounds of appealo

94S In the Couet of Shri MeleSinghal
0 4
nl
AddleOistrict Oudge Patialae

CeAeNoe378of 30e4e88e
Oecided ons 25e701989e

Shri Kulwant Rai son of Shri Tulsi Ram resident ef

Raja Narinder Singh StreetNabha District Ritialae

r4
eeePlaintifflappellante
Versus
1
The State of R1njab through the Collecter of Patiala

Patiala Oistrict Patialae

1

4 1

9
Appeal under section 96 CePeCe against the

decree and udgment ef Shri Lakhbir Singh

e

PCSAdditional Senior Sub JudgeNabha

dated 1701001988passed in suit Noe217 of

3e5e19860

4n

sir

The appsllant submits as unders 1

1e That the applicatimn for copy was submitted

en 1710e1988 and the copies were prepared en 3101001988
Hence the appeal is being filed wlthin

Certified cepy of the decrae and judgment is attached

herewith 1

2e That the decree and judgment of the trial court

which is under appesl re against law and facts and are

1

Suresh Kumar liable to be setmasidee

2014.07.03 11:54
Scanned True Copy of Original
r
PHHC,Chandigarh
3e That the learned trial court has wrongly
1 41
 47
1

held that the intifflappellant i not the swner

1
0

of the suit land but pessessien of the appsllant has

been upelde
9
e

4e mat the trial ceurt has wrongly interpreted

0

the documents on the recorde It is fully proved 0n

record that by virtue of uutatlen Noel8l the land

sxc6pt the shamlat measuring11 bighas 13 biawas was

51

mutatedin the name mf th appellant but the sald

mutation was ameododlateron and tho share in the

shamlat was Iwtated in tho name of the appellant and

the same is entsred in Ule jamabandifor the year

1984e858K wherein of 11 bighas 13 blsWas 1

instsad

Ehe land mea8uring 13 bighas 2 biswas is shown to be

1v

belongingto the appellante

Se That the other mutatien pertains to the

facts that 2 khasra numbers 853 and 855 ere shewn

1

1
as shamlatland and actually they were of the ownership

of the person wh0se lsind was auctioned and by virtue

of sale they were to go to tho predecessoreinnterest

et
of the appellante

6 That the lsarned Collector has wrongly

entered nto e
centroversy Ehat I bigha 6 biswas

whenconvetted into kanals woult1 be 2 kanals 2 mrlas

and4 bigha 16 blswas would convort inte 10 kanals 4 marlase

Heretho land in the Village is shown in bighas and biswas

andnot 1n kanals and 1 bigha 6 biswas pukhta will
Suresh Kumar
2014.07.03 11:54oonvert ihte 4 bigha 16 biswasas 1 bigha 6 biswas
Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh
was pJlshta onse

contdeee
 48

e3m

7 ev That previuusly the khasra number 346

has been wrongly shown as 1588

3
instead of 1586e

S
8e That tho learned tril ceurt has wrongly
1

held that the appellant did not PJrchaso 13 bi9has

Osn

3 biswas of the land al ongwith share in th e hamlat

patti of Nabhae
1
43

90 That tho trial court t9aswr0ngly

appreCiated the evidence en the

P
recorde
1

100 That the Posssssion 0f the appellant was for

more than 60 years svon and as such alsothe appellant
1
e

acquired the ownership of the disputed 1and by way ef

adverse possession being in its possession as an owner to

r

the knowledge of the defendant openly continuously

and natoriouslYe r

lle That the trial

1
urt did not pr9vide fully
0oottunity to the appe1lant to lead the evidence

120 That proer issues arising from the pleadings

of the parties ere not framede

It is theefore prayed tht the appeal may

bs acceptede decreeand judgment of the trial court be

s8teaside and the suit of the laintifflapoellant be decrSed f

1 G

with costs throughoute l

1

4
1
Submitted by
Sdl Kulwant Rai
Suresh Kumar
Datsd228e1101988
2014.07.03 11:54 Kulwant Rai son of Shri Tulsi Ram
Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh
IeKhanna Gupt residen8Nasingh stree
and
VeMeGuptap
AdvecatesPatiala Plintifflappellante
 d
49

7 ae That previously the khasra number 346

has been wrongly shown as 1588 instead of 1586 2

Be That the learned tril court has wrongly

held that the appellant did not pJrchase 13 bighas

es11

3 biswas of the land alengwith share ln the lamlat

patti of Nabhae
e

9e That the trial ceurt Iias wrongly

appreclatedthe evidence on thee recorde

1

100 That the Possassion of the appellant was fer

more as
than 60 years evon and f
such alsothe appellant
acquiredths ownership of the disputed 1and by way of

adverse possessien being in its possession as an owner to

r

the knowledge of the defendant openly continuously

and natori6UslYe t

110 That the trial court did not provide fully

epottunity to the appe11ant to lead the evidencee

120 That proer issues arising from the pleadings

0

Il
of the parties 0ere not framede

It is theeefora prayed tht the appeal may

be acceede decraeand judgment of the trial court be

sdtaslde and the suit of thelaitifflappellant be decreed

4

witM costs througheute

submitted by
Sdl Kuelwant Rai
Suresh Kumar
Oatedz2801101988
2014.07.03 11:54 Kulwant Rai son of Shri Tulsi Ram
Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh
LalGupta of RajaNarinder Singh stree
residentNabhaDittePatilae
IeOeKhanna and VeMeGupta
AdvecatesPatiala PlaintifflaPpellante
 P

20
1

5
16
Copy of Oecree Sheete r

In the Court of Shrl MeLeSinghal

AddleDistrict JudgePatialae
r

CeANoe378 of 30e488
Oscid s 25Zz222 17el1988e 1
9

Shri Kulwant Rai sen ef Shri Tulsi Ram resident of

Raja Narihder Sin9h Street Nabha Oistrict Patialae

V

eeePlaintifflappellante
0
Versus
t

The Stateeef Punjab through theellector of Patiala

Patiala Oistrict
1
Patialae

Date of presantation of Vlaint in first ceurtt3e501986

Date ef Decision in first court 1701001988

4b

Civil Appeal Noe378 of 30011088against the judment

and decree of AddleSenior Sub JudgeNa8ha dated 171088
1

suit for declaratien te the effect that plaintiff

1 t

is the exclusive ewner ln possessien of land represtted

by Khewat N01976 Khatauni r

Khasra Noe3468Kanals

2 Marlas per jamabndl 8081 and the dafendant has no

cmncern with it

Value for the purposes of courtfee Rsel9Sl

Value fer the pJrposss of jurisdictien Rse

Memorendumsf appeale

KUlwant Rai Versus State uf RJnjab

Plaintiff Defendant
Suresh Kumar
2014.07.03 11:54
Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh The plaintiff abovs named appeals to the
1

District Court t Patiala from the dcree ofAddlSenior

 4

21
1

ee2

Sub Oudge Nabha in ths above suit dated 17th day of Oct fl

1988for the reasons sat out fn ths Greunds of appeale

This appeal coming on today for final h8aring

before me in the l1resence of ceunsel for the partieso

it is ordered that the appeal is partly accepted and the

plaintiffappellants suit is decreed for declar8tion that

1
he is exclusive
1
ownor pesses8ion of land masuring 5
in

Kanalseut of Khewat Nee1976Khatani Noe263911 khasra Noe3482r

Jamabandi8081 and the defendant has ne concern with is Noe order

as to c8stSe 0

The costs of the eriginal suit are tobe paid is directed

by the lower courte

Csts of the appeale

1

Appeale Respondente

1e Stamp for memorandum of appeal 1SO 1

2e tocess fee e50 n

4

3e Stampfor powere 1 e2 5

4e Coun8els foe No certificate 15

5e MisCe 400
e e e e e e 4 e e e e e r e e e e e e

Total RSe 26 25 151

e e e e 0 0 4 e e e e e e e e e e e eeee

Givenunder my hand and the seal Of the court thfs

25th day of July 19890

Sd MaLeSingal

Suresh Kumar
AddleDistrict Judge ks

2014.07.03 11:54 C
1
Scanned True Copy of Original
i
PHHC,Chandigarh L
0 Patiala
4
Troe cowe
 1

22 opl el

Cepy uf Judgement
l e

In the Court of SheLakhbir SinghePC

Additional seseier 3ub Judges Nabhae

Suit Noe217 of 3eSe86e

Dscided oni 1701019880

1
4
Kulwant Rai son of SheTulsi Ram rls Raja N2rinder Singh

street Nabha DisttPatialae

eeeaintiffe
Versus
1

The State of Rlnjabthrough the Collector of PatialaPatiala

1

Olstrict Patialae V

4
eeeOefendante

1 c4t for Declaratien

4 e

Present lsel for the Flaintiff 1

1 9t1

Govsrnmsnt Pleader or the Oependent0

OUOGEMENTs
1

1
The suit ef the plaintiff isrfor declaration

to the effect that he is the exclusive onar in

pessess40nof the land rspresented by Khewat No1976

Khatauni Ne263911 Khasra No34648KMarlas as psr
0

Jamabandi for ths year 198081 and the defendant has no

ev

rlght titl or interest in it

2e His version is that by the erder of hi

Highness Maharaja of Nabha land measuring 1382 Biswas

by
represented Khewat N0e1711628125Khasra Nose852Min0e18
853emin812 854111 and 8550e129alongwith
Suresh Kumar share in Shamlat Patti of Nabha which comes to l Bigha
2014.07.03 11:54
Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh 10 biswas Pukhta belonging to one Kalu son of Jawahra

contdee
 23

resdent of Nabha was sold in pblic auctione It was

rchased by one Salig Ram son 1

of CharanjiMal of

Nabha for Rse10501e That mutation N30181 ua this auction

was
1
in of the purchaser on 2 Magbar
snactioned favour
1973 BeKeThat uutation Noe611of the4inheritence
of saidSallg Ramwas sanctioned in favour of his heirs

and legal rapresentatives namely smteRamRakhi wdlo

Modi Ram 6 Madho Ram Tulsi Rem andFanna Lal sons of Salig
Ram in 4w esual shares alonguith share in shamlat pattie
It is dlleged that dua te oversightand mistake shamlat
5

Patti area maasuring 18 10 bisUas was left out ln

the intial mutation ieee mutation No181 and then lateron

the cerrection uutation Noe615 was entered and sanctioned

4

in favour of above sald Ram Rakhi Tulsi Ram td Paa

Lal alias Balwant Singh sons of Salig Ram 0112806086 BeKe

V

It is furthar allegedby the plaltiff that the aforesald

e

property alongwith share ln the Shamlat Pstti remained

in possesion of Salig Ram and after his death his

legal hoirs sUccesded to hi estate including10 suit

0 1
e
land and they came in posssssiun of it Tulai Ram

Panna Lal and Ram Rakhi have expired

e
PlaintF f claims

that he has succeeded theme In this manner it is

1
ass8rted by him that he succeeded to tha estate O

of Salig Ram and is in possessien of the same as 0nere 4

In Febuary1985 a notice was receivsd by the plaintiff

Ie

from the defendant for vacating the land represented by

Khasra No346829 It is averred by the plaintiff
Suresh Kumar that after the receipt ef notice he appeared ln tho
2014.07.03 11:54
Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh court and also applied for copies of the tevenOo
contde ee
 24
rP
S

record and then he came to know that Khasra Noe346 has

been wrongly shown to be ewned by th8edefendant State

althogghhe is owner in possession of it Plaintiff

4

also served registsred 800Notice upon the defendant on

16e85 for gettingethe revenue record corrected but of

no availe Hence this suite

3e Neblce ef tha suit to the b

was given defendante
It filed Jritton stasmnt admittihg that Salig Ram

urchased the land in public auctione According to it

the area purchaaed was 11 8 138iswas cemprised in
ol
KhasraNoe852 Min 018 853 min812 854min1e419 and

855421 for a consideratien of Rse11501e It denied

that the area of amlat Patti measuring 1810 Biswas

was lpurchased by Saliq Rama1t is pleaded by tho defendant

1

that there is no such entry regarding purchase of shamlat

mutation No181 Regarding wutatil Noe611 the case of the

9

defendant is that it does not relate tm the lnheritence of Saliq

Rambut it is a Nutation to correct the entry of nutation Noel8le

According to it area incl4ded in nutation Noe615 leee

KhasraNoe852 min0189and 8550129 which was alroady

41

nutated in favour of Salig Ram vide uutation Noel8l does

V4

not show any shre in Shamlat Patti and that rtatien

Noe615 was entered to correct nly thn previous antries of

leee
ahipin respect of KIsra Nose852 mitand

instead of Kalu Ram the previous ownere It denied that any

4 1

property was left out of the pJrchased area from

Suresh Kumar
2014.07.03 11:54
Scanned True Copy of Original
in the
imp1ementeti6n revenue recorde According to the
PHHC,Chandigarh r
defondant 118138iwas remained in possassien of

cbtdeee
 1

25

Salig Rame It denied that Shamlat Pattf was over in

possession of Salig Ram or wfth his succsssors in

Ir
intereste It is alleged 1 by the defendants that plaintiff

hasrnn right in khasra No346 and it has been crrectly

4

entered in possessien of the Provincial Governmonte

Oefendantsalso challenged t6e maintainablity

of the suit in the form and thelecus standi
present
of the plaintiff to file this uite Accurding to the defendant
4
thesuit is not within time and that it is

liable ta be dlsmisssd for want of notice u1800 the CPC

t 4
e

4e Plaintiff filed replication controverting the

t

pleas conte8ted by the defendant and remiterating

those taken in the paint e

J

5e From the ploadings ofle parties the following t

lssUes framsd in this 1

were caset

9 0

1 Whther the plaintiff is exclusive Otner in

e
e

possessienQf the land ih suit 710PPe

2 Whether the suit is ithin time OI

4

39 Whether valld notlce under section 80 CPC

e

was issued to the defendant 2PPe

t

41 Whether the su is not maintainable 70POe

s Whethortthe plaintif has no locus standi te

S

file the suit 20P00

6 Reliefe

6e In support of the case

plaintiff exmined
Suresh Kumar
2014.07.03 11:54 PW1 Mohanm Singh PW2 Gwniial Singhld PW3 Dharem Pal Clerk
Scanned True Copy of Original
t
n

PHHC,Chandigarh
to Advocate Nabha 8esidos thisi he himself
contdeoe
 be

26 4

1
1

t
e
P
4n

5
1

stepped into the witnoss box as PW4eDocUmentsrof the

paintiff are Exe1 and P2 rent notes dte2e1e84 and 3012e83

1

Uls 80
2fPon4 11
served
9
2ert tha 3 ne4n44m
certlfied coRy 8f the ne tice
41n4
sent by Collect6r Sub Oivision Nabha to the plaintiff
ExoV7 to P9 copies of mutatien Noel8l611 and 615 respectivsly
k

Z
xeP10 copy of Jamabandi fothe year 198485 81Ke

ExePll cepy3f Jamaindi forthe yeri199394 BeKe

ExP cow Jaman f the ye 19623 ExeP certifled

copy nf the epplication moved by Divisional Foreset Officer

Cellector Sub Oivisien Nabha Exe14 plan of Khasra

11100346ExeP15 Rent nute dte28e11083 ExeP16 copy 9f Nl

1
1

Khatouni Murababandi of 195859 ExeP17 copy of Khatauhi

4

PatamalExeP18copy of Exnusavi ExeP19 cepy of Jamabandi

for the year 1993e84 BKEx191A tranlation of ExeP19

in unjabiExeP20 copy of the entries o preceedings

register of PanchyatofIillae Nabha nd ExeP21 certifi

copy 0f Nakshe1dkdarware
1

7 Against the evidence of the plaintiffd8fend8ht

examined 0W1Shamsher Singh Fleld and
Quanungo OW2 Mohinder

Singh Office QuanungoeThe documents ef the dsfendants are

1
ExeDl copy of Khasra Girdawari from 198687 to 198788

Exe02 copy of the khas Girdawari for the year 398182

4 r

to 198586 Exe03 copy of the Khasra Girdaari for the

yearfr 19778 te 198081 cow the

Khasra Gird8wari frem the yeSr 19712 to 19756

Suresh Kumar Exe05 copY 7of Khasra Girdawari for the year 196667 to
2014.07.03 11:54 4
Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh 197071 ExseDe6 to 0013 copies of the Jaabandies fer

1 1
 e
V

27
0

6
4
It tlle years 198586 198081e 197576 1970119656
1962eS3 195657 and 495253 respectivelYe
V

80 Iehave heard the learned counsel for tMe

plaintiff and the LdeGovtPloaderor the defendanteBeide

this I have gone through th filee The f0llowin9s are

findings and conclusiens on the issues above

Ir

Issue Noell

9e PWl and 802 re Mohan Singh and Gurdial Singh

70

Theyproved the rentnotes ExeP2 and P2 PW6 ls Achhru

Ran Oesd WrltereHe Proved agroement ExPlS dated 281283

According te ExePl site measuring 13 x 10Ieards was taken

on
lease sut of the area of Khasra N346 from Kulwant

Raie Similarly according to ExP2 Gurdil Singh toek site

measuring 15 x 10 yeard fr0m KulwantRai

Ie
uut of the area of 1

4J
Khasra Noe346e Posssssion has been shown ee have been

delivered on 2ele84 and 80121983 respectivelyAccording

to ExP15 Gurdip Singh took 640 Sqefeet site out ef the
1 1

area of Khasra Noe346 from Kulwant Rai 8n 28e12e810 Possassion

is shown to have been delivered to hime On the dates Gf

EXePlP2 and PlS there wa no dispJte bbtween the

plaintlf and the defendant This indicates that plaintiff

4
WSIS
in pedsessien and onthat account he delivered

pessession to the lesseesp iee Mohan Sino Gurdial Singh

4
and Gurdlp Singhe The submissien of the LdeGovtePleader
1

that these documents have been maniPutlated cannot

e
be glven any waight especially when the stamp paperse
Suresh Kumar
2014.07.03 11:54have
Scanned True Copy of Original boen shown te be purchased on 24484812e83 and
1

PHHC,Chandigarh
28012e83 respectively and there was nodispJte betwaen

contdee
 28 1

Ae
1
r 7
e

the plaintiff and defendants on those dates Kulwant Rai

plaintiff also riterated his version regarding his

possassien on the suit lande PW5 Bhupinder Singh is Oraftsmane

He repared the site plan ExeP140 In Ehis decument as well

Khasra Noe346 has bean shown to be either in possession

4

af KOlwant Rai or in possesslon of GurdipSinghGurdial

singh ahd Mohan Singhounder hii Leee Kulwant Raip

From the statements of fWl PW2and PW6 and documents

1

ExePlp 2 and P157 it is evident that Mohan Singh

Gurdial Singh and Gurdip Sinsh taok site out of Khasra N0346
plaintiffeApartfrom this thelssessiun of 6he plaintifr alse stands establ
ished Noe346as Collector Sub Oivisien Nabha sent notice in
on
Khasra the year 1985 that he was in an unauthorised possession

as is evident from ExeP6e This notice was sent on the

basis of tho applicatien moved by Oivisional Forest

1

lOffieer Patiala the cepy Gf which is ExeP130 A perusal ll

of ExeP13 shows tht even Oivisioohl Forest Qfficer

1

admitted the Plaintiff to be in possession althou1

r

in his own way ieee the possession has been shown

1

to be illsgal and foreiee The contention of the learned

GovtePleader is that in the revenue record Khasra

0
Noe346has been shown to be in possession of forest

of DW1 Shamsher Singh field Quanungo 0 412Mohinder Singh

ffice Quanungo and docum8nts EXeDl te 013e In EXeOl 4

which ls copy of Khasra GirdawaripossessLen of 0B eut

13

of Khaa Noe346 is shown te be of Naujawn Sudhar Sabha

r
and 7K14M to be of Forest OepartmonteLikewise ls
1

the entry in Exe02e In Exe03 possession has been shown

Suresh Kumar
2014.07.03 11:54
Scanned True Copy of Original contdee
PHHC,Chandigarh
4 1

Ll

7
 29 P

8ae 4

to 8e ef Ferest Oepartment in 19767 and 197879e There

1

after NaujawanSudhar Sabha has been shown to be in

possassione In Exe04 which is the cooy of KhasraGirdawari

for the year 19701 t8 the posssssion has

e

been shown to be of Fcrest Depattmentin the year

1971e72 and 197271 but lateron ence the p6ssession hasoeen

shown te be of Ramash Chand and then of Forast Oeartmeht

In ExeD5 the pessessien has been shown to be of Forest 1

Oepartment in the year 1966e67 to 1970e31 EX06 and D7

are the copies ef the Jamabandies for the year 198586

and 1980810 In Exe06 the possession on OK8M out t0f
4
khasra Nee346 is of Naujawan Sudhar Sabha and on the remaining
land has been shown to be of Furest Oepartment
In the year 198081 NaujawanSudhar Sabha is shewn
te be in poasessiene In ExeO8ExeD9 and Exe010 and ExeDll
which are copieseef the Jamabandies for the year s 197576
9

197031 19656 and 19623 the possession has been

shown to be of Forest Oepartmont In the year 195657 and 4

195253 the pessession h2s been shown to be f Oepartment

It

ef State Engineer as is evident from cepies of the

Oamabandles EXeO12 and 013e me submissien of the learned

4
Govte Pleeder regarding possession of the Forost OeRartment
en khasra Noe346 is not accaptablee It is not known

as te how Furest Deoartmant came in possessione In

195253 and 195657p Oepartment of State Engineer has been e

sh0wn to be ln possessione Thera isne evidence as to

1 n

h0u Fore8t Oepartment toak possession from this Depanent

ef State Engineere I best evidsnce has ben Withheld
Suresh Kumar
2014.07.03 11:54
Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh
contdeeO
e
1
 30 l2

9 4
1

by the defendant regarding possessiooe No person from the

Frest epartment has been examinede Ne record from

that departmentis on the filee It is only the

1

efficial of the Forest Departmentor its record c0u1d

tell as t0 how Forest Oepartment came in possession and

P

whatthe Forest Ospartmentwa8 deing in Khasra Noe346e

4

It has been held in th case of Gopal Krlshanji

Katkar Versus Mohamad Haji Latlf and others AIR 1968 SC0

pago1413 tht when a party is in possessionuf best

evident which would throw llght on the issue in

1

centrvercy and that evidenco is withheld the court

eughtto draw an adverse inference against him

Mereevr in the revenue record khasra Noe346 has baen

to be Orain Ganda Nalae It being so it dees net

appeal to reason that Forest Oapartment weuld be in

possession
of such a drain or Maujawan Sudhar Sabha

will be in its possessiope Moreover it appears

1

that the entry regardig possession has been made by

ths Revenue Authorities in the record without ascertaining 2

the actual positione Henco it cannet be 5aid that the

Fsrest Department is in pessession 0f te suit land

perticularly when even the fficer V

Divisienal Forest
G
admittedthe possession of the plaintiff on the suit land

1
Sub Divisien Nabha issued
andeven Cellecter netica
4
as
that the plaintiff is in unautherisod possesion

is clear from ExeP6e Ragarding possessioo of the Forest

no w6ight can be ettached to the statewent

e

ef Owl andeOW2and the revenOe entries made in

Suresh Kumar
2014.07.03 11:54
Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarhthis respect Rathsr the entries regarding oossessien
5
e
41

contdeee
 31 9

9 10
e
1

t2
e

shown in the revenue record ap8r to ms tm be

paper transactien prepared withaut knowing the actual

possessien on the suit lande

especially when in Axusavithe cuw ef which is ExeP18

theite of the drain has been shcwn as Khasra

Nu345 but in the revenue record drain Ganda Nala has 1

been hown to be existing in Khasra Noe346e

10e 1
From in everall assessment of the discussien
4

madeabove I cenclude that the plaintiff is in possessien

of the suit lande
1

110 Regardihgewnership of the suit land the

submission of SheVeKeGoalLdcounsel for thsplaintiff

isthat 1383 biswas ofand alongwith share in the

shamlat patti ef Nabha which comes to 18e0 biswas Rkhta was

by Sali R8m under the urdersef his Highness

Maharaja of Nabha and thet inadvsrtantly in mutation

r

No181 whch was sanctionedagardln9 the purchase 0f

land 1810 Blswa c0uld not be entered and that

subsequentlycurtection nwtaons Noe611 and 615 were

sanctloned OnVthe othar hand learned Govta lsader submitted

that 11813 biswasPukhta9 were seld in auction t6

am and not 13381swase After considering both
Salig
the rival submissiens I find considerable force
1

in the submission of theeLdlGovtVleadereCepy of mutation 0

ExP7 shows that mutation regarding tho change 0f

in
ownershipwas sanctioned regarding 11813 biswas

Suresh Kumar
2014.07.03 11:54
favour of Salig Ram son of Chardnji Mal ExeP8 is th coy
Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh
ef mutatien Noe6110 It is a correction mutatien according

eC contdee 1
 1 1

32

411 11
4 4
1 1
1
to which share in Shamlat has been shown to

belof SmteRam
Rakhi Tulsi Ram and Panna Lalsuccessors

inmdnterestof Salig Rame The copy of correctien mutation

r

Noe615 isIEXeP9e A perusal Uf this drcument shows that

1
it1 has be6n rederded regarding Khasra Noe85208188i8wasl
t

and e
After joint reading Gf mutation

Nosel8l and 615 it becomes evident that uutatiun

4 r

No615is1 not far different land Rather it is out

ef the rand whicb has besn sHown in mutation Noel8l th8

copy of which is ExeP7 To my mind earlior Khasra Noe852

018 and Kh2sra No8530127 wsre not shown as Shamlat

J
4n mutation 0615 these Khasra numbers have been shown

te beeshamlate Ldecounael for th8 palaintiff failod to show

me was area
that there any other 0f Khasra Noe852018
r

and Khasra No8530e12 than the one already shown in

mutation N00181 the copy of which is ExeP7

1
Thereeis
V

nothing in the documentaryevidence from which it can

1
be said that Salig Ram purchased 1384 3biswas Rlkhta in

auction ofland of Kalu undor the ordars of his

0
Highness Maharaja of Nabhae It being sp the statament
of plaintiff and OWl that 1384biswas Pukhta were

pJrchassd cannot begivsn any weighte Hence the

conclusion is that 11813biswas RJkhta land was

prchased by Salig Ram successorinwterest of SmteRam e

RakhiTulsi Ram and Pannsale

120 Now the matetial questionis as to whether the

Suresh Kumar plaintiff is the exclusive owner of Khasra Ne346

2014.07.03 11:54 e
Scanned True Copy ofIn
Original
this connection the learned counsel for the
PHHC,Chandigarh plaintiff

contdeel
 1

33

42
1
P
1
N 12em

that 3184 9 biswas of land was allotted as

per for the year 1984085Bk as is evident

from ExeP10 and it being so the plaintiffis the
1

No346e He further convessed that in

owner
of Khasra G

fact revenue record has not been pre pared corrsctly

as
KhasreNoe346 haseebeen shown torbb carved owt in

lieu of Khasra N001588 although Khasra Noe346has beSn 1

out in lieu of Khasra N15864446e In this

1

hereferred to copy of jamabandifor the

19589 which ls ExeP16ld copy of Khatouni lstomal

the statement of OW2eA perUsal of ExeP16 shows the

Exe17and
Khasra N001586to be 160 Khasra Aloe346has been
areof
out in lieu0f Khasra N001586as is clear from

1
the ExoM7e It being submissiOn ef lsarned
erusal of so the
for the plaintlff that the reveriue record in which

has been shown to have bee carved out in

lieu of Khasra is wurding is well feunded Meeeover the

has been ex plained by 0W2 whotated that he

rul e out that by mistake the old Khasra number

N0e346 has b6en givl as 1588 instead of

Even in the Khatauni istamel for the year 195859 preparsd

on the basisof record for the year 1957m58 the area

ef Khasra ls shown to be 18biswas and on

it will be at the mest 2Ke2Marlas or

2KW3Marlase As per this Khatauni Istamalp the area of

Khasre Noe 1586ls 4816biswase Fromthis angle lso th8

S

ar8a
of Khasra N001588 cannot be 10K4Marlase Thus tha
Suresh Kumar
the Jamabandi
2014.07.03 11:54 net concllsisn
Scanned True Copy of Original
is that in advertantly in
PHHC,Chandigarh
for the 19623 the revenu e official s forgot to
year
contde ee
 34

1
0
1 13
mention Khasra Noe1586 in lieu of which the suit land

ieee khasra Noe346 has been carved oute In the enttre

4

revenue record which has been placed on file Khasr

0
Noe346 has not been shown tm be of the plaintiffe

ExePll is the cepy of th Jambandi for the year 199384 8K

e

Khasra N0e1586 was carved

4
Accerding to this document aut
71
in lieu e old Khasra Numbers 856 minp857minand 854 mirie
1
The Owner Of Khasra NOe1586has besn shown to be sarkar

OaulatlMadare The plaintiff has failedte establish

that his land has falled in Khasra Noe1586 when it

Was carved out in lieu of old Khaara numbere Sallg Ram

did not purchase Khasra Nose856 and 857 at alle Since

long the Provincial Gevernment is shown to be owner

of Khasra Noe346ePresumption of ruth stands attached to

the cepy Jamabaod although this presumptisn lS

rebuttable one1 The plaintiff railed te establish that

Khasra Noe346 bolongs to him particularly when Khasra

Noe346 has been carved out in lisu of Khasra N0e1586

and Khasra Noe1586 was carved out in lieu ef Khasra 4

e
el
Nose856 min 857 min and 854 min and plaintiff has falled
1

to show that hisland alse fell in Khasra N0e1586 when

it was carved out Rather in lieu of the land pJrcbased

318 198 f land to Ram Rakhi Tulsi RamPanna Lal Was given as

is clear from the coRy of Jamabandi for the year 1984858K

whic8 is EePlO and thereis nething that they

1

raised any object1on In these circumstances plaintiff 1

e

cannot be said to bs the owner of Khasra Noe346e Rathee

e

Suresh Kumar
the defendant
2014.07.03 11:54
is the ownar of ite
Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh

pe
contdeee
 lll

35
r e

e
e

14 4
1 1
1 J
130 As a result ef what has been discusssd

abeve I conclude that plaintiffis not the ewner

3
ef tha suit lwld although he is in on unauthorised
e 9

P3ssession of it Accordingly this issUe is partly

decided in favour of the plaintiff regarding his

1
4

possession en the suit land and partly against him

regarding ownershipe In other words this issue goes

rtly in favewr of the defendant end partly against ite

ISSUE NO2s

140 The suit of the plaintiff is for declaratl0n that

he is the exclusive owner and in possession ofthe suit

land For declaration the pericd of limitation is fer

three Years when the causa of actuian First accruese

1

Nerein this case the defendant sent notice to the plalntiff

as
is evident from ExeP6 in he year 1985 that he was

111 an possessiene Even the Oivisional

unauthorised Forest

14 Officer Vatiala aldo moved applicatien that plaintiff

1

was in illegal pmssessione That applicatien was also

moved in the year 1985e Dn the bsis of that application

notice copy of which is ExeP6 was issuede It being so

ths cause ofaction accured to the plaintif in March

4

1985e Accordingly the filing of th8 suit by him

Suresh Kumar
2014.07.03 11:54 1
Scanned True
J Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarhon 3eSe86 is well within time Accordingly this lSSUO

contCeee
 6 e

36

15

4 18 clinched in favourof the plaintiff and against the

defendant

e
Issue Noe3s

150 DecumentsExeP30 P5 prove the serVlCe

of notics uls 80 of theeCPC upon the defendante Exe3 1

Il

isethe copy ef the ooti sent to the defendant on 16785

318 4

by the plaintiff through hls counsele ExeP4 is the

It

pestal receipt and ExeP5 acknowledgementeLde GovtePloader

e
failed to shoU that notice wwas not served In these

circumstanceseI concludsIat plaintiff servsd notice

Uls 80 CPC upn the defendant before filing the sUlte

A6cordingly this issue ls decided in favour of the

1 1
plaintiff and against ths efendant

Issue Noe41
cS
160 The anus of prabf of this issus is on ths

defendant LdeGovtePleader did not press thisissue

at the time af argumentse Even etherwisethe relief

claimed iM thelit could be claimsd in the manner in

Ohlch it has been prayed fore Hance I findtoedefect

1 in thn erm of the In ethor words the suit as

suite
e

laid is maintainablee Hencs this issue ls answered e

against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff

1

IssueNoe51
Suresh Kumar
2014.07.03 11:54
Scanned True 170 Ils
Copy of Original plaintiff has beenld ts be in
PHHC,Chandigarh

possession of the suit land he has the lacus standi

 1

37
r

16

to file the suit for declaratien that he is in

possession sven if he has failed to astablish that

he is the ownerAccordingly this issue is decided

e

ln of the plaintiff and against the

favour defendant
a
RELIEF e

180 As result of ml findings 0n the issUes

above plaintiff partly succeeds and has suit is

decreed against the defendant for dsclaration te the

9

effebt that he is in possnssion of the landp detailed

1
U

in the heading 0f ths plaint although his possession

is llleg1 and unauthorlssde Se far asthe remaining

relief claimed in thesuit is concerned the same

in declineda However in the peculiar circumstances of the

ol

oasee the parties are left to bear their20wn costse

Oecree sheet be preparede

File be consignede
42

ronoudced in npen court Sdle

AddleSenior Sub Jodge
Dateds1710e1988e P

1e

Patial

P
COp

Suresh Kumar
2014.07.03 11:54
Scanned True Copy of Original
PHHC,Chandigarh
0