Shiv Charan v. Manohar Singh

IN T

Shiv Charan

Manohar Singh

CORAM: HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

MANDEEP PA

1.

appellant/plainti

17.02.1988 pass dated 20.07.199 instituted by the defendants from Kanals 16 Marla under challenge

2.

the controversy: Gordhan |

|

RamChander = Gia

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ

AT CHANDIG

RS

Re

Pro

VERSUS

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the r. Surinder Garg, Advocate and r. Lalit Chander Sharma, Advoca ANNU, J e present Regular Second A iff, Shiv Charan, assailing t sed by the learned trial Court, a 93 passed by the learned First e plaintiff for grant of decree of m interfering in his alleged poss as was dismissed. The concurren in the present appeal. e following pedigree is not in dis : =

Harbai wid

|

|

| arsi (widow)

| ____________________

| | Ram Devi Sarti

JAB AND HARYANA GARH SA-1746-1993 (O&M) served on: 25.08.2025

onounced on: 29.08.2025

.....Appellant .....Respondent DEEP PANNU e appellant. ate for the respondent. Appeal has been filed by the judgment and decree da as well as the judgment and dec Appellate Court, whereby the perpetual injunction restraining session over the land measuring nt findings of both Courts below spute and is necessary to appreci dow of Gordhan

_______________________________ | | | Sukh Devi Baldei Chan

ated cree suit g 81 are iate __

Facts of the Ca

3.

Charan institute decree of perm possession over situated in villa had been cultiva had even install claimed that he had reaped crop contended that b years, to the kn land by way of a

4.

It w Chander son of Malia, thereby Chander. Accord new alliance, an right in the pro plaintiff alleged upon forcibly di

5.

objection that th denied the poss adverse possess Giarsi on accoun ase e brief facts emerging from th d a suit against the defendants, i manent injunction restraining the r the land in dispute i.e. land age Ghatal Maniawas, Tehsil Re ating the land in question as Ga ed a tubewell at his own cost fo had been cultivating wheat and v ps during Rabi and Kharif seas by virtue of his long, open, and h nowledge of the true owners, he adverse possession. was also pleaded that original o f Govardhan, had contracted a K forfeiting her rights in the esta ding to the plaintiff, Smt. Giarsi nd never cultivated the land in qu operty left behind by her dece d that the defendants, having no ispossessing him from the disput e defendants contested the suit. he suit is bad of non-joinder of ne session of the plaintiff as Gair sion. They further denied the p nt of her Karewa marriage, and a

he pleadings are that plaintiff-S ncluding Manohar Singh, seekin em from interfering in his alleg measuring 81 Kanals 16 mar ewari. The plaintiff asserted that air Marusi since the year 1961, a or irrigation purposes. It was furt vegetables on the disputed land a sons of 1982. The plaintiff furt hostile possession for more than e had perfected his title to the s owner Smt. Giarsi, widow of R Karewa marriage in 1960 with o ate of her deceased husband R i thereafter begot children from uestion. Thus, she had no subsist eased husband-Ram Chander. T o right, title, or interest, were b ted land. They took one of the prelimin ecessary parties. They categorica r Marusi or as owner by way lea of forfeiture of rights by S asserted that she remained owne

Shiv ng a ged rlas t he ther ther n 12 suit Ram one Ram her ting bent nary ally y of Smt.

the extent of h provisions of th answering defe registered sale d names on 21.06 purchasers for v

6.

Rep defendants, and

7.

On

¶1disp 1-A of a

2. OP

¶3filin

¶4pre

5.

8.

Bot Findings of the

9.

Lea dated17.02.1988 statement giving claim ownership half share of the land inherite he Hindu Succession Act, 1956 endants had purchased the ha deed dated 15.06.1982 and mut

6.1982. Thus, the defendants cl valuable consideration, in lawful plication was filed by the pl reiterating the averments of the n the basis of pleadings, the follow Whether the plaintiff is own pute as Gair Marusi as alleged? A. Whether the plaintiff has beco adverse possession? OPP Whether the suit is bad for PD Whether the plaintiff is esto ng the present suit? OPD Whether this Court is havin esent suit? OPD Relief. th the parties have led their respe e Trial Court arned trial Court observed in th 8, that during trial, the learned g up Issue No.1-A, and specific p by way of adverse possession.

ed from her husband, as per

¶6It was further pleaded that alf share of Smt. Giarsi throu tation was duly sanctioned in th laimed themselves to be bona f possession of the property. laintiff denying the stand of plaint. wing issues were framed: ner in possession of the property OPP ome owner of the suit land by w r non-joinder of necessary parti opped by his act and conduct fr ng no jurisdiction to entertain ective evidence. he impugned judgment and dec d counsel for the plaintiff mad ally stated that the plaintiff did In view of this concession, the t

ugh heir fide y in way ies? rom cree de a not

Court recorded property on the

10.

As Jamabandi entri 'Ex.PE' for the y Harbai, mother recorded as co-o Marlas, while Sh The Court furth sometimes as ow Marusi, thereby

11.

Giarsi did not 1956, and she c proved on recor deed dated 15.0 Consequently, t injunction again Findings of the

12.

with the finding establish the nat owner, relative claim of indepen the defendants h as co-owners, a a finding that the plaintiff can plea of adverse possession. regards possession, the trial Co ies 'Ex.PC' for the year 1962–6 year 1972–73, 'Ex.PA' for the ye of Ram Chander, and Smt. Gia owners in equal shares in the su hiv Charan was shown in posses her noted that the plaintiff himse wner, sometimes as relative of y taking inconsistent stands. e trial Court held that performa divest her of ownership rights continued to remain absolute ow rd that the defendants purchased

06.1982 and were thus owners the trial Court held that the pl nst the true owners, and dismisse e First Appellate Court e First Appellate Court reappr gs of the trial Court. It was he ture of his possession, as he vac of owner, or tenant at will. The ndent possession as Gair Marus had purchased the share of Smt. and the plaintiff could not resist

nnot be declared owner of the s ourt considered revenue records 63, 'Ex.PD' for the year 1967– ear 1977–78 and observed that S arsi, widow of Ram Chander, w uit property measuring 81 kanals ssion being a relative of the own elf admitted to cultivating the la the owner, and sometimes as G ance of Karewa marriage by S under the Hindu Succession A wner of her half share. It was a d her share through registered s s in possession of that half sha laintiff had no legal right to s d the suit. raised the evidence and concur eld that the plaintiff had failed cillated between the stand of be revenue entries did not support si. The Court further held that o Giarsi, they stepped into her sh their lawful possession. The Co

suit s i.e –68, Smt. were s 16 ers. Gair Smt. Act, also sale are. eek rred d to eing his nce hoes

further held that is not so entitled property on beh licensee is not e dismissed.

13.

Fee the present appe Submissions of

14.

Lea Courts below er been in long se more than two Supreme Court

(2004) 1 RCR ( and settled pos possessor canno injunction can th the plaintiff wa disturbed except has further sub appellant/plainti appellant/plainti Submissions of

15.

Per plaintiff had utt revenue entries t a person who is holding a certa d to any relief of permanent injun half of some persons, he is in no b entitled to the relief of permanen eling aggrieved by the judgment eal has been preferred by the app f the Appellant arned counsel for the appellant rred in law in dismissing the suit ettled possession over the dispu decades. Reliance was placed in Rame Gowda (D) by LRs. v. (Civil) 519, wherein it was held ssession of a property is entit ot be dispossessed by the owne hereby be granted to protect suc as in settled possession, and the t in accordance with law. Learne bmitted that the Courts below iff could not get permanent injun iff stands proved to be Gair Mar f the Respondents r contra, learned counsel for t terly failed to establish any co showed him merely as a relative

ain property on behalf of the own nction because when a person ho better position than a licensee an nt injunction. Thus, the appeal w ts and decrees of the Courts bel pellant/plaintiff – Shiv Charan. t/plaintiff contended that both t. It was urged that the plaintiff h uted land, cultivating the same d on the decision of the Hon' M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by L d that even a trespasser in peace tled to protection of law, such er without due process of law a ch possession. It was submitted t erefore his possession could not ed counsel for the appellant/plain w have erred in holding that nction against the true owner, as rousi even after the partition. the respondents submitted that nsistent or lawful possession. T e of the owners. The plea of adve

ners olds nd a was ow, had for 'ble LRs. eful h a that t be ntiff

possession was defendants had possession lawf was argued that only where pos present case, th his possession w Findings

16.

Hav this Court is of t Courts below su

17.

the plaint but t Therefore, the q What is to be se the title but the q

18.

Karewa marriag Supreme Court followed thereaf widow inherits remarriage does this extent are le

19.

It i land measuring and Smt. Harba expressly abandoned before t purchased the share of Smt. G fully. A trespasser cannot seek in t the principle laid down in Ra ssession is settled, peaceful, an he plaintiff admitted possession was not protected. ving heard learned counsel for the considered opinion that the c uffer from illegality and are based doubt, the plaintiff initially too the same was expressly given question of ownership by way of een in the present case, being a s question of possession of the pla e contention that Smt. Giarsi ge is untenable. This legal positi in Eramma v. Veerupana, AIR fter that after the enactment of th the property of her deceased hu s not divest her of such rights. Fi egal and upheld.

s relevant to mention that the su 81 Kanals 16 Marlas. The reve i were recorded as co-owners in

the trial Court. Further, once iarsi, they acquired ownership a njunction against the true owners ame Gowda's case (supra) app nd not permissive, whereas in under different capacities. Hen the parties and perused the reco concurrent findings recorded by d on a wrong proposition of law. ok the plea of adverse possession up by him before the trial Co f adverse possession does not ar suit for permanent injunction, is aintiff over the suit property. lost her rights after contract ion has been settled by the Hon' R 1966 SC 1879, and consisten he Hindu Succession Act, 1956, usband as absolute owner, and indings of both the Courts below uit was filed in respect of the to nue record reveals that Smt. Gia n equal shares. Thus, the defenda

s. It lies nce, ord, . n in urt. rise. not ting 'ble ntly her w to otal arsi

who claim purc acquired only h respondent in es Smt. Giarsi. The 0), 16 (8–0), 17 20 (8–0), 16 (8–

20.

Exc that defendants evidence to sho purchased from partitioned and fact that they ste never remained the same and as possession of ½

21.

(Ex.PC) onward consistently rec over the half sh more than two d suit property. Hi Giarsi, or therea

22.

Varadappa Nai trespasser in set force and is e chase from Smt. Giarsi vide reg half share, i.e. 40 Kanals 18 Ma ssence revolves around this half e land covered by the said sale d 7/2 (4–0), 24 (8–0), 25 (8–0), 5 –0). cept for stray entry in partition p are owners in possession of sh ow that defendants ever come Smt. Giarsi and got partitioned ½ share of Smt. Giarsi came to t epped into the shoes of Smt. Gia in possession of ½ share of suit s per jamabadies it was plaintiff-share of Smt. Giarsi as "Gair M e relevant revenue entries i.e. ds up to the latest Khasra Girdaw ord the possession of the plaint hare of Smt. Giarsi. This conti decades demonstrates that the pla is possession was never disturbe after by the defendants who purc e Hon'ble Supreme Court in R idu (D) by LRs. (2004) 1 RCR ttled possession cannot be dispos entitled to protection of law u

gistered sale deed dated 15.06.19 arlas. The dispute with the pres f share which originally belonged deed comprises Khasra Nos. 15 (8–0), 6 (8–0), 1 (7–4), 10 (6–1 proceedings of suit land to the eff hare of their land, there is no ot in possession of ½ share of la thereafter. Assuming suit land w the defendants, this proves only arsi. However, Smt. Giarsi, hers t land at the time, she was owner -Shiv Charan who is shown to be Marusi". Jamabandi for the year 1962– wari for the year 1983–84 (Ex.P tiff Shiv Charan as "Gair Maru inuous recording of possession aintiff is in settled possession of ed either by the original owner, S hased her share. Rame Gowda (D) by LRs. v. R (Civil) 519 has held that eve ssessed by the true owner by use until dispossession is effected

sent d to (8– 12), ffect ther was self, r of e in –63 PK), usi" for f the Smt. M. n a e of

accordance with George Singh possession itself injunction even through due pro

23.

Ap that the plainti possession as "G so, he is entitle findings of the possession as a cross-examinati Revenue entrie inconsistent ora evidence and in

24.

Acc Court to the co permanent injun possession in re of Smt. Giarsi p

25.

As revenue record r and daughters, n not parties to th concern with it, maintainable an h law. Similarly, in Walter Louis

(Dead) through LRs 1997 (2) f is protected in law and a person n against the true owner, who ocess. plying these principles to the pre iff has successfully proved th Gair Marusi" in respect of the h ed to protect his possession aga e trial Court and first appellat relative of the owner or treating on of plaintiff, are contrary to th es, which are the best evide al statements. Both Courts be drawing adverse conclusions. cordingly, the findings of the ontrary are set aside. The plain nction restraining the defendant spect of half share measuring 40 purchased by the defendants, exc regards the other half share be reveals that after her death, the namely Ram Devi, Sarti, Sukhd he present proceedings. Since th the suit against them in respect nd is bad for non-joinder of nec

is Franklin (Dead) through LR RCR (Civil) 41, it was held t n in settled possession is entitled must seek recovery of possess esent case, this Court is of the vi hrough revenue record his sett alf share of Smt. Giarsi. Being h ainst true owner also. The contr te Court, holding him merely g him as a licensee on stray lines he documentary evidence on reco ence of possession, prevail o elow erred in ignoring this v trial Court and the first appell ntiff is held entitled to a decree ts from interfering with his sett 0 Kanals 18 Marlas, being the sh ept in due course of law. elonging to Smt. Harbai, perusal property was inherited by her s devi, Baldei and Chandro, who he respondents/defendants have t of the share of Smt. Harbai is cessary parties i.e. LRs of Harb

s v. that d to sion iew tled held rary y in s in ord. over vital late e of tled hare l of ons are not

Accordingly, th cause of action parties. Conclusion

26.

In Appeal is allow and 20.07.1993 Shiv Charan is d defendants from owned by Smt. land. The remai other ½ share of

27.

Pen

August 29, 2025 tripti

Whethe

Whethe

he suit of the plaintiff to that e against respondents and being view of the foregoing discuss wed in part. The impugned judgm of the Courts below are hereb declared entitled to a decree of p m interfering in his possession ov Giarsi, measuring 40 Kanals 1 ining claim of the appellant/pla f Smt. Harbai stands dismissed i nding application(s), if any, also

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

extent stands dismissed having g bad for non-joinder of necess sion, the present Regular Seco ments and decrees dated 17.02.19 by set aside. The plaintiff-appell permanent injunction restraining ver the half share of land origina 18 Marlas except in due course aintiff-Shiv Charan with respect in view of the reasons given abo stand disposed off. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

sary ond lant ally e of t to