PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)
Present appeal has been preferred by appellants-defendants being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 03.09.1998 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fathegarh Sahib, whereby suit preferred by plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction was decreed and appellants- defendants were restrained from interfering into peaceful possession over the suit property and also by judgment and decree dated 17.05.1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby first appeal preferred by appellants-defendants was dismissed.
2. The simple case of respondent-plaintiff-Gram Panchayat was that suit property is gair mumkin abadi land owned by it and its safeda trees are standing over it. It was claimed that appellants-defendants have no right and connection over the suit property, however, they are forcibly threatening to dispossess respondent-plaintiff and uproot the trees standing therein.
1
3. The suit was contested by appellants-defendants. They had claimed possession of suit property and dismissal of suit was prayed for.
4. Following issues were framed from the pleadings of the parties:-
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction prayed for ? OPP.
ii. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD.
iii. Relief.
5. Learned Court of First instance had decided issue No.1 in favour of respondent-plaintiff, issue No.2 against appellants-defendants and had decreed the suit. Learned Appellate Court had upheld the decision of the learned Court of First Instance.
6. In order to prove their case, respondent-plaintiff had placed reliance upon Jamabandi (Ex.P1) and khasra girdawrai (Ex.P2) as well as evidence of PW1-Chet Singh, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, wherein he had claimed that it is Gram Panchayat who is owner in possession of the suit property, whereas appellants-defendants have been claiming their possession out of said land, which is depicted in Ex.P1 by claiming that they are in possession of property measuring 59 feet on the eastern side, bounded by abadi of Hakam Singh; 30-1/2 feet towards western side, bounded by taur of well; 48 feet on northern side, bounded by abadi of Bhagwan Singh and 81 feet towards south, bounded by street. However, appellants-defendants have not disclosed as to whether the suit property is part of khasra number upon which respondent-plaintiff is claiming its right vide Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.
7. Appellants-defendants have been claiming possession of suit
2
property on the basis of agreement to sell (Ex.D1). They have claimed that suit land is under their possession for the last 10 years and they have planted the trees over the same. It was claimed that before them, it was Mohinder Singh who was in possession of suit property. It was also claimed that Mohinder Singh had executed agreement to sell.
8. Learned Court of First Instance had rightly rejected the claim made by appellants-defendants on the ground that agreement to sell does not create any right in the suit property. Moreover, no evidence was led by appellants-defendants to show that Mohinder Singh was ever in possession of suit property and was entitled to sell the suit property being owner of the same. Merely claiming suit property on the basis of some agreement and proving the same is of no help to the case of appellants-defendants as agreement to sell neither creates title nor is of any use, unless it is shown that vendor had title over the suit property. Therefore, agreement to sell (Ex.D1) was rightly rejected by learned Court of First instance as well as learned First Appellate Court. Moreover, no demarcation report or evidence has been placed on record to show that the suit property is not part of land, stated and covered by Jamabandi (Ex.P1). Hence, by attaching presumption of truth to revenue, the learned Court of First Instance had rightly accepted the claim of the plaintiff.
9. Learned counsel for appellants-defendants has argued that in present case once possession of appellants-defendants is proved by way of agreement to sell, the learned Court of First instance as well as learned First Appellate Court ought to have accepted the same as plaintiff had failed to show its possession over the suit property. Argument raised on behalf of
3
learned counsel for appellants-defendants cannot be accepted for simple reason that the appellants-defendants vide (Ex.D1) had failed to prove their possession over suit property. They have even failed to prove that Mohinder Singh from whom they are claiming possession was ever in possession of the suit property. Unless possession of Mohinder Singh is proved, mere agreement to sell (Ex.D1), which has not matured in sale deed till date is of no help to the case of appellants-defendants. On one hand, plaintiff has succeeded in proving its case which is totally corroborated by revenue records. On the other hand, the case of appellants-defendants is based upon unsubstantiated claims without there being any evidence to the effect that they are in possession of suit land.
10. In view of above discussion, present appeal is dismissed being without any merit.
11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(PARMOD GOYAL)
JUDGE
04.08.2026
Sunil Chander Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
4