BRAHMU DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. JOGINDER SINGH AND OTHERS
LAWS(P&H)-2014-7-1063
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on July 10,2014

Brahmu Devi And Others Appellant
VERSUS
Joginder Singh And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

RAJIVE BHALLA,J. - (1.) The appellants challenge judgments and decrees dated 16.5.1984 and 22.5.1985 passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Dasuya and the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, respectively, dismissing their suit and appeal.
(2.) Bachhittar Singh (since deceased), represented by his LRs), filed a suit for possession of land measuring, 03 Kanals-11 Marlas, bearing khewat no.376, khatoni no. 693 and khasra no.1523 situated in village Badla, on the basis of jamabandi for the year 1972- 73 and also prayed that super structure raised by the respondents be removed. Bachhittar Singh pleaded that he has purchased this land from Nirmala Devi and though the respondents have no concern with the suit land, they have taken forcible possession and raised temporary structures, without his consent.
(3.) The defendant/respondents filed a joint written statement denying the ownership of Bachhittar Singh or his vendor and averred that the land, in dispute, was part of pre-consolidation khasra no.2043, measuring 07 Kanals which was jointly owned by the respondents and the appellants vendor's mother. Khasra no. 2043 is recorded in jamabandi for the year 1953-54 as "banjar qadim", i.e, non-agricultural land. Consolidation authorities, therefore, had no jurisdiction to bifurcate khasra no.2043 and allot a part of it to Bachhittar Singh's, vendor's mother. The respondents are in possession in accordance with their respective share holdings and cannot be dispossessed without partition. The respondents also pleaded that Nirmala Devi could not sell the suit land to Bachhittar Singh as the sale is beyond her share and as the respondents have raised construction by incurring heavy expenditure, they cannot be dispossessed without compensation. In the alternative, the respondents prayed that if orders passed by consolidation authorities are held to be valid, they have become owners by adverse possession. The respondents also raised preliminary objections as to misjoinder of parties and causes of action, maintainability of the suit, valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and pleaded that the suit is barred by time.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.