Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Sarup @ Sarup @ Ram Swaroop And Others vs Jaswinder Kaur And Others on 10 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033295
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-6696-2024 (O&M)
RESERVED ON: 25.02.2025
.2025
PRONOUNCED ON: 10.03.2025
Ram Sarup @ Sarup @ Ram Swaroop and Others ....Petitioners
Versus
Jaswinder Kaur and Others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL.
Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Munish Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate and
Mr. Bhavya Vats, Advocate for the respondent
respondents.
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J
The instant revision petition is directed against the order dated
18.09.2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Panchkula vide which the suit filed by respondents No. 1 to
3/plaintiffs under Section 6 of the Specific R
Relief
elief Act, 1963 (for short
‘the 1963 Act’) for restoration of possession was decreed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as per
their original status.
3. There is a famous proverb ‘Blood
‘Blood is Thicker Than Water’ which
ch
essentially means that familial bonds will always be stronger than other
relationships. The oldest record of this well-known
well known saying, as per Wikipedia,
can be traced back to the 12th Century in the German language where it first
appeared in the Medieval German Beast Epic ‘Reinhart Fuchs’ (English
meaning ‘Reynard the Fox’). In the good old times, familial bonds were
strong. The young members of the family had enormous respect for the elders
and the elders too were fair and caring. In most families, proper
property
ty disputes
were looked down upon especially when disputes erupted between blood
1 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2025 05:05:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033295
CR-6696-2024 (O&M) -2-
relations and close family members. With time, with the rise in the prices of
property, there has been a decline in values. Murders take place over property
disputes and civil litigation has become the order of the day. No doubt, such
litigation and disputes have existed since times immemorial but over the last
quarter of a Century, such disputes have witnessed a sharp increase.
4. The present case is also a small example of such disputes. It is
also sad that in many cases, no dispute arises till the time a person is living but
the moment a person leaves the mortal frame, disputes erupt. In the present
case, the dispute is between one whole family consisting of parents, one son
the family of a pre-deceased son and two daughters on one side and the family
of another pre-deceased son on the other. Ram Sarup @ Sarup @ Ram
Swaroop (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ram Swaroop’) and Surinder Kaur @
Sarinder Kaur had three sons namely Jagdeep @ Jagdeep Singh, Swaran
Singh and Harjinder Pal and two daughters namely Paramjit Kaur and
Manjeet Kaur. The plaintiffs Jaswinder Kaur, Manpreet Kaur and Amandeep
Singh are the wife and two children of Harjinder Pal. Harjinder Pal was
murdered in 2009. Certain disputes erupted between the plaintiffs and the
parents of Harjinder Pal and a string of litigation ensued, the details of which
shall be mentioned later on.
5. The plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 6 of the 1963 Act for
restoration of possession of portion of residential house situated in Village
Jaisingh Pura, Sector 27, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the ‘disputed
property’) as depicted by the letters GHIJ in the site plan (Ex. P-1).
Consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
alienating and transferring the possession of the disputed property was also
sought.
6. The case set up was that out of the three sons and two daughters,
2 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2025 05:05:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033295
CR-6696-2024 (O&M) -3-
Harjinder Pal and Swaran Singh had expired. Harjinder Pal, who was working
as a Chowkidar in Post Office,Sector-1, Panchkula was murdered on
04.01.2009 while he was on duty. It was alleged that the defendant Ram
Swaroop was holding joint family properties out of which, some properties
had been acquired by the State of Haryana for the development of Sector-27,
Panchkula. After the death of Harjinder Pal, relations between the plaintiffs
and defendant No.1 became strained as a result of which litigation ensued.
7. On 03.09.2021, the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs from
the disputed property by breaking open the locks. They are alleged to have
taken away the household articles and are also alleged to have taken illegal
possession of the same. Complaints were preferred to the police and other
authorities but no action was taken. The police, instead of taking action
against the defendants, challaned plaintiff No.1 under Section 107/150 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’). However, since no
further action was taken on the complaints, the suit was filed.
8. The suit was opposed by the defendants. Defendants No.1 to 4
(Ram Swaroop, Surinder Kaur @ Sarinder Kaur, wife of Ram Swaroop,
Jagdeep @ Jagdeep Singh) and Harjinder Kaur, wife of Jagdeep @ Jagdeep
Singh filed a joint written statement. Certain preliminary objections regarding
maintainability, cause of action, the suit being barred, the plaintiffs having no
cause of action etc. were raised. The basic stand that was taken was that Ram
Swaroop and his wife had constructed houses over property comprised in
Khasra No.212 measuring 1 Kanal 12 Marlas out of their love and affection
for their sons and gave equal shares to all sons and daughters as depicted in
the site plan (Ex. R-1). Portion MNOP in Ex. R-1 had been given to Harjinder
Pal who was residing there with his family. Unfortunately, Harjinder Pal was
murdered after which the plaintiffs started harassing Ram Swaroop and his
3 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2025 05:05:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033295
CR-6696-2024 (O&M) -4-
wife and other family members on one pretext or the other and forcibly
encroached upon the portion Marked OQRS upon which two rooms had been
constructed by Ram Swaroop which were lying vacant. It was also averred
that during the lifetime of Harjinder Pal, Ram Swaroop had given equal share
of ancestral property to all his sons and daughters. The plaintiffs, however, did
not vacate the portion OQRS and litigation ensued.
9. In a family meeting held on 03.08.2021, it was decided that the
possession of the disputed property would be handed over to Ram Swaroop
and pursuant to the same, the possession was handed over. It was also settled
that regarding distribution of self-acquired agricultural land, which was
purchased by defendant No.1 from the compensation amount received on
account of acquisition of another property, Ram Swaroop would remain its
owner in possession during his lifetime and after his death, all properties
would be inherited in equal shares by all legal heirs which would include the
plaintiffs. It was also agreed that the settlement would be reduced into writing
and the pending litigation would be decided in terms thereof. However, the
appeal filed by Ram Swaroop against the judgment and decree dated
13.09.2017 was dismissed on 02.09.2021 and immediately upon dismissal of
the same, the plaintiffs started demanding their share in the compensation
amount and other properties and then filed the suit after having submitted a
false complaint to the police. On merits also, a similar stand was taken.
10. In the replication, averments made in the written statement were
denied and those made in the plaint were reiterated.
11. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for possession,
as prayed for? OPP
2. If issue no.1 is proved, then whether the plaintiffs are entitled
to a decree for permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP4 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2025 05:05:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033295
CR-6696-2024 (O&M) -5-
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present
suit? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the
present suit? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and
conduct on filing of present suit? OPD
7. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred under Specific
Relief Act? OPD
8. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean
hands and suppressed the true and material facts from the
Court? OPD
9. Whether the suit is not valued properly for the purpose of
proper court fee? OPD
10. Relief.”
12. Parties led extensive evidence. The plaintiff appeared as PW-1
and produced a number of documents. On the other hand, the defendants
examined two witnesses namely Surinder Kaur @ Sarinder Kaur and Manjeet
Kaur and also produced a number of documents.
13. The trial Court decreed the suit, leading to the filing of the
present revision petition.
14. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.
15. It was strenuously urged by Sh. Shailendra Jain, learned Senior
counsel representing the petitioners/defendants that the trial Court had erred in
decreeing the suit. Learned counsel referred to the site plan and the other
documents on record which include various judgments and decrees passed in
the litigation that ensued between the parties. Reference was also made to the
cross-examination of the plaintiff Jaswinder Kaur. It was pointed out that she
had admitted in her cross-examination that the possession was taken over
from her in August 2021 whereas in the plaint, she had claimed that she had
been dispossessed from the disputed property on 03.09.2021. Learned Senior
5 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2025 05:05:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033295
CR-6696-2024 (O&M) -6-
counsel submitted that once the exact date of dispossession was not
forthcoming and had in fact been concealed, the suit could not have been
decreed. Learned Senior counsel submitted that for a suit filed under Section 6
of the 1963 Act, two vital elements were required to be proved by the
plaintiffs which were the specific date till which the plaintiffs were in
possession and the specific and precise date of dispossession.
16. It was also submitted that the nature of possession was also
required to be gone into, for, the plaintiffs were not owners of the suit
property. It was submitted that at no point of time had any suit for declaration
qua ownership of the residential property and the disputed property been filed
and Ram Swaroop/defendant No.1 was reflected as the sole owner of the land
on which the property was constructed, as per Jamabandi for the year 2019-
2020 (Ex. R-2). Learned Senior counsel also submitted that upon a complaint
having been submitted by the plaintiff, the matter was inquired into by the
police and upon investigation, it was the plaintiff who was challaned under
Section 107/150 Cr.P.C. and report (Ex. RX) was submitted wherein it was
clearly stated that the complaint regarding forcible possession having been
taken by the defendants was false.
17. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that it was pursuant to
an oral family settlement which was yet to be recorded in writing that the
possession of the disputed property had been handed over by plaintiff No.1 to
the defendants on 03.08.2021 and it was on account of this fact that defendant
No.1 did not pursue his appeal which was ultimately dismissed on 02.09.2021.
After the dismissal of the said appeal, the plaintiffs backed out of the oral
settlement and made an attempt to take back the possession of the disputed
property. Learned Senior counsel submitted that the trial Court did not
consider the cogent evidence led on the record of the case by the defendants
6 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2025 05:05:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033295
CR-6696-2024 (O&M) -7-
and place undue reliance upon the evidence led by the plaintiffs. Learned
Senior counsel submitted that the decision of the trial Court is not sustainable
and deserves to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned Senior
counsel placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court of
India in the case of ‘Anima Mallick Vs. Ajoy Kumar Roy and Another’ 2000
(4) SCC 119, judgment passed by this Court in the case of ‘Satpal Singh and
Another Vs. Gurmej Singh and Another‘ 2019 (2) PLR 379, judgments
passed by the Gauhati High Court in the cases of ‘Kameswar Deka Vs. Gajen
Deka and Others‘ 2010 (20) RCR (Civil) 98, ‘Sri Madhusudhan Paul and
Others Vs. Shri Ganesh Biswas S/o Late Girish Biswas, R/o Laluk
Padumoni, Mouza and P.S. Laluk, District-Lakhimpur’2015 (33) RCR
(Civil) 880, ‘On the Death of Sukhlal Roy, His Legal Heirs, Sachindra Roy
and Others Vs. On the Death of Bhabesh Chandra Roy, His Legal Heirs
Smti Basanti Roy and Others’2015 (76) RCR (Civil) 505 as also the
judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of ‘Sham
Sunder Rao and Others Vs. Sri. Saraswathi Vidya Peetham, Hyderabad’
2002 (4) ALT 645.
18. Per contra, learned counsel representing the
respondents/defendants submitted with equal vehemence that there is no
illegality in the decision under challenge. He also referred to the oral and
documentary evidence led on the record of the case as also to the litigation
that had ensued between the parties over a period of time. He submitted that
the chain of events would show that the plaintiffs were in actual physical
possession of the disputed property and they were dispossessed, which led to
the filing of the suit. It was submitted that the version put forth by the
defendants that the possession of the disputed property had been handed back
by the plaintiffs pursuant to an oral family settlement is unacceptable, devoid
7 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2025 05:05:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033295
CR-6696-2024 (O&M) -8-
of logic and does not have the force of law. It was submitted that it is totally
unacceptable that the parties who were at logger heads for so many years
would orally settle the matter and after the dismissal of the appeal filed by
defendant No.1, the plaintiffs would hand over the possession of the disputed
property voluntarily.
19. Learned counsel submitted that the trial Court had examined the
matter from all angles and had rightly decreed the suit. In support of his
contentions, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Supreme
Court of India in the case of ‘Sudhir Jaggi Vs. Sunil Akash Sinha
Choudhary‘, 2004 (4) RCR (Civil) 241 as also judgments passed by this
Court in the cases of ‘Dr. Surinder Singh Talab Vs. Bua Dass (died)
Through LRs.‘, 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 498 and ‘Hira Singh Vs. Swaran Kaur
and Others’, 2015 (8) RCR (Civil) 646.
20. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties.
21. Section 6 of the 1963 Act lays down as under:
“6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property-
(1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of
immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any
person [through whom he has been in possession or any person]
claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof,
notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.
(2) No suit under this section shall be brought-
(a) after the expiry of six months from the date of
dispossession; or
(b) against the Government.
(3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any
suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order
or decree be allowed.
(4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to
establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof.”
8 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2025 05:05:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033295
CR-6696-2024 (O&M) -9-
22. There is no dispute as regards the description of the property, for,
portion mentioned as GHIJ as depicted in the site plan (Ex. P-1) is the same as
the portion mentioned as OQRS as depicted in the site plan (Ex. R-1). It is not
in dispute that there was a string of litigation which ensued between the
parties. The details of the said litigation have been given in the grounds of
revision:
Sr. No. Particulars of litigation Relief claimed/granted
1. CS/181/05.05.2010 by plaintiffs During the pendency of the civil suit, a
against defendants, which was compromise took place between both the
dismissed in default on parties in a Biradari Panchayat on
02.03.2013. 12.09.2010 deciding that the plaintiffs are
entitled to 1/6th share in respect of
movable and immovable properties
including the compensation amount
payable to the defendant No.1 in lieu of
the property acquired by the State of
Haryana for the Development of Sector-
27, Panchkula.
2. CS/324/2014 filed by defendant 1. Civil Suit for mandatory injunction
No.1 against plaintiffs No.1 directing defendant No.1 to vacate the
dismissed vide judgment and premises marked as GHIJ shown in the
decree dated 03.08.2015 (Ex. P4 site plan in red color attached with the
and Ex. P5) by Ld. CJ (JD), plaint.
Panchkula. 2. Appeal bearing No.CA/1552/2015
against the judgment and decree dated
03.08.2015 (Ex. P4 and Ex. P5) was also
dismissed vide judgment and decree
dated 25.02.2016 (Ex. P2 and Ex. P3) by
Ld. ADJ, Panchkula.
3. CS/591/2015 by the plaintiffs 1. Civil Suit for declaration, mandatory
against the defendants decreed injunction and permanent injunction that
vide judgment and decreed dated they are owners of 1/6th share in the
13.09.2017 (Ex. P6 and Ex. P7) movable or immovable properties held by
by Ld. ACJ (SD), Panchkula. the defendant No.1
2. The appeal bearing No.CA/259/2017
filed by the defendant No.1 against the
respondents and against the judgment and
decree dated 13.09.2017 (Ex. P6 and Ex.
P7) was dismissed vide judgment and
decree dated 02.09.2021 (Ex P8 and Ex.
P9) passed by Ld. ADJ, Panchkula.
3. RSA No.997 of 2022 filed by
petitioners against judgment and decree
dated 02.09.2021 (Ex. P8 and Ex. P9)
passed by Ld. ADJ, Panchkula is pending
before this Hon’ble High Court and the
executing court has been directed to
adjourn the case beyond the date fixed
before the court, meanwhile vide order
dated 10.05.2022.
4. An execution application against the
judgment and decree dated 13.09.2017
(Ex. P6 and Ex. P7) by Ld. ACJ (SD),
9 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2025 05:05:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033295
CR-6696-2024 (O&M) -10-
Panchkula is pending before Executing
Court of Ld. ACJ (SD), Panchkula.
4. CS/672/2015 filed by defendant Civil Suit for challenging the
No.1 compromise dated 12.09.2010, which is
yet pending adjudication.
23. The aforesaid table would show that disputes are going on
between the parties for the last 15 years and by and large, matters have been
decided in favour of the plaintiffs. In the first suit initiated by the plaintiff,
depicted at Sr. No. 1 of the table, a compromise is stated to have been arrived
at between the parties as per which it was decided that the plaintiffs were
entitled to 1/6th share in the movable and immovable property including
compensation payable to defendant No.1.
24. In the suit filed in the year 2014, depicted at Sr. No.2, defendant
No.1 Ram Swaroop was non-suited and the relief of mandatory injunction
directing the plaintiffs to vacate the same portion i.e. the disputed property
was dismissed and appeal against the said judgment and decree was also
dismissed. In the suit filed by the plaintiffs in 2015, depicted at Sr. No.3, a
declaration was issued that the plaintiffs were owners of 1/6th share in the
movable and immovable property of defendant No.1.The appeal filed by the
defendant was dismissed on 02.09.2021 and regular second appeal is pending.
An execution petition has also been preferred by the plaintiffs which is also
pending. There is yet another suit initiated by defendant No.1 challenging the
compromise entered into on 12.09.2010 during the pendency of the first suit
which is pending adjudication. Then came the present suit preferred under
Section 6 of the 1963 Act.
25. One thing which emerges from all the litigations that ensued
between the parties is that that plaintiffs were in possession of the disputed
property. Now comes the issue as to whether they were dispossessed or they
10 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2025 05:05:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033295
CR-6696-2024 (O&M) -11-
had handed over possession voluntarily. As per the defendants, an oral family
settlement had been arrived at pursuant to which the defendants handed over
the possession on 02.08.2021 but after the dismissal of appeal on 02.09.2021,
they instituted the present suit. This version seems to be totally unacceptable
because if some family settlement had been arrived at, some writing must
have been executed because parties were at logger heads for the last 15 years
and nobody, under such circumstances, would be having faith on each other. It
is extremely hard to accept that under such circumstances, the plaintiffs would
hand over possession of the disputed property voluntarily to the defendants.
Why the settlement was not reduced into writing has not been explained. Why
the appeal was dismissed without there being any mention of the said
settlement during the course of the appeal has also not been explained. The
version of the defendants is completely oral and not supported by any
evidence worth its name.
26. The argument that the specific date of dispossession is not
known, for, plaintiff No.1 had admitted in her cross-examination that
possession had been taken from her in August 2021 will not cause any dent in
the case of the plaintiffs. It has to be borne in mind that the cross-examination
has to be considered as a whole and no part of it can be considered in
isolation. The fact remains that dispossession was there. The matter was
reported to the police as well. No doubt, the police gave a report (Ex. RX) that
no forcible dispossession was there but that mere report cannot be accepted as
a gospel truth because such a report is based upon the statements made by
persons present at a particular place. It is not unknown that a widow and her
two children would have less support as compared to the defendants who had
been living in the area for a number of years and in any case, a lady without
husband has less support as compared to others. The fact remains that the suit
11 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2025 05:05:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033295
CR-6696-2024 (O&M) -12-
was instituted within a period of six months from the dispossession, be it
August 2021 or September 2021. Under the circumstances, the specific date of
dispossession would be comparatively irrelevant here and that too merely
because in the cross-examination, the plaintiff had stated that possession had
been taken over from her in August 2021. The argument is, therefore, devoid
of merit and is rejected.
27. The plaintiffs not being the owners of the disputed property is
also not relevant, for, it is the question of dispossession which is important in
a suit filed under Section 6 of the 1963 Act and the question of title, in the
considered opinion of this Court, would be irrelevant. In taking this view, I
draw support from a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ‘Sudhir Jaggi
Vs. Sunil Akash Sinha Choudhary‘, 2004 (4) RCR (Civil) 241. In this case, a
categoric view was taken by the Supreme Court of India while relying upon a
judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘Raj Krishna Parui Vs.
Muktaram Das‘, [(1910) 12 Calcutta Law Journal 605], wherein it had been
held that the question of title was immaterial and the relevant issue was
possession. Further, even a trespasser in settled possession is not required to
prove his title over the suit land but is only required to prove lawful long
possession. It was so held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Rame
Gowda (D) by Lrs. Vs. Mr. Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. and Anr.’, 2004 (1)
SCC 769. Further, as per the provisions of Section 6 (3) of the 1963 Act, no
appeal lies from an order or decree passed in any suit instituted under the said
provision. It was held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘I.T.C.
Limited Vs. Adarsh Coop. Housing Soc. Ltd.’, 2013 (10) SCC 169 that
proceedings under Section 6 of the 1963 Act are of summary nature and since
no appeal or review is maintainable against a decision rendered under the said
provision, only the remedy of revision under Section 115 CPC is available and
12 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2025 05:05:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033295
CR-6696-2024 (O&M) -13-
that too in exceptional cases.
28. The learned trial Court examined the matter from all angles and
returned a well-reasoned finding based upon correct appreciation of evidence. I
have found nothing in the impugned judgment and decree which could have even
prima facie led this Court to interfere in revisional jurisdiction. There is
absolutely no jurisdictional error in the judgment and, therefore, I do not find any
reason to exercise the revisional jurisdiction conferred on this Court by virtue of
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
29. I have gone through the judgments relied upon by both sides. The
basic stress in the judgments relied upon by learned Senior counsel representing
the petitioners is on the issue of the specific date of dispossession which, for,
reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs would not apply to the facts of
the present case because in any case, the civil suit was filed within a period of six
months. Still further, the other judgments would also not come to the aid of the
petitioners, for, they were given in the facts of each case which were completely
different from the facts in the present case. I do not deem it essential to refer to
those judgments in detail keeping in view the clear facts which have emerged in
the present case from the evidence led by the parties.
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I do not
find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
Pronounced on: 10.03.2025
Prince Chawla
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
13 of 13
::: Downloaded on - 13-03-2025 05:05:11 :::
[ad_1]
Source link