Gurudwara Sahib Vill... v. Gram Panchayat Villa..., Punjab & Haryana High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

RSA No. 2823 of 2011 (O&M)

Advocates

Mr. R.S Pandher, Advocate for the appellant.

Judges

Ram Chand Gupta, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that he had become the owner of the disputed property by adverse possession and sought correction of the revenue records in his name. Additionally, he sought a declaration that an auction conducted by the Gram Panchayat (respondent no. 1) over the land was null and void, along with a permanent injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat from dispossessing him. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellant-plaintiff's appeal against this decision was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge. The present regular second appeal challenges the dismissal of the earlier appeals.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the appellant-plaintiff can claim ownership of the disputed property by adverse possession against the Gram Panchayat.
Whether the appellant-plaintiff is entitled to an injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat from dispossessing him.
Whether the auction conducted by the Gram Panchayat over the disputed land is null and void.
Whether any question of law or substantial question of law arises for determination in the second appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant-plaintiff asserted that he had established possession over the disputed land.
He contended that since possession was established and acknowledged by the courts below, he was entitled at least to the relief of injunction.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Gurdwara Sahib Sannauli v. State Of Punjab & Ors. (2009) 154 PLR 756	Adverse possession plea is available only to a defendant and cannot be used by a plaintiff to claim ownership.	The court relied on this precedent to hold that the appellant-plaintiff could not claim ownership by adverse possession against the Gram Panchayat, who is the admitted owner.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the evidence and the judgments of the lower courts. It noted that while possession of the land by the appellant-plaintiff was established, the legal principle as per the cited precedent is that adverse possession is a defense available only to defendants, not a basis for a plaintiff's claim to ownership. Since the Gram Panchayat is the admitted owner of the property, the appellant-plaintiff’s possession was without legal right. Consequently, the appellant-plaintiff could not claim an injunction against the Gram Panchayat. The court found no illegality, perversity, or misappreciation of evidence in the lower courts’ decisions. It also observed that no substantial question of law arose warranting interference in the second appeal.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed in limine.

This decision upholds the findings of the lower courts that the appellant-plaintiff has no legal right to ownership or injunction against the Gram Panchayat. No new precedent was established, and the direct effect is the dismissal of the appellant’s claims and appeals.

Show full summary ...

Gurudwara Sahib Village Sirthala Birajman Shree Guru Granth Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala Through Its Sarpanch And Another S

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 11.12.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, dismissing the appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 6.11.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khanna, dismissing suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below.

Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for a decree for declaration to the effect that he has become owner of the property in dispute by adverse possession and that the revenue record showing ownership of respondent no. 1-Gram Panchayat is liable to be corrected in the name of plaintiff with further declaration that auction already made by the Gram Panchayat of the land in dispute is null and void with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining respondent no. 1-Gram Panchayat from dispossessing the plaintiff from the land in dispute.

Suit filed by appellant-plaintiff on appreciation of evidence was dismissed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that possession of the land in dispute has been established and it has been so held by learned Courts below and hence, he is entitled at least for relief of injunction.

However there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff. It has been rightly observed by learned Courts below by placing reliance upon Gurdwara Sahib Sannauli v. State Of Punjab & Ors…. S (2009) 154 PLR 756, that no declaration can be sought by plaintiff for ownership on the basis of adverse possession as the plea is available only to defendant. However, admittedly respondent-Gram Panchayat is the owner of the property in dispute. The present appellant-plaintiff is in possession of the same without any right. Hence, he is having no right to seek injunction against the Gram Panchayat.

Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine.

Gurudwara Sahib Vill... v. Gram Panchayat Villa...