Punjab and Haryana High Court – Regular Second Appeal Dismissed; Possession Based on Family Settlement Upheld
Case Name: Mam Chand (deceased) through LRs Ram Gopal and another v. Fakir Chand and others
Citation: RSA No. 1747 of 2018
Date of Judgment: 7 January 2020
Bench: Justice Ritu Bahri
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal filed by the plaintiffs, affirming the lower appellate court’s dismissal of their suit for permanent injunction. The Court held that the defendants’ possession over the disputed property was lawful, flowing from a family settlement dated 03.06.1960, and that the plaintiffs had failed to prove forcible dispossession on 01.02.2010.
Summary: The plaintiffs claimed joint ownership of a residential house marked with letters L K N O situated in khasra No. 39 (51′ x 33′) on the basis of an alleged oral exchange dated 03.06.1960 between their predecessor Devi Sahai and Hariya (predecessor of defendants). They contended that after the defendants forcibly occupied the property on 01.02.2010, they were entitled to injunction.
The trial court accepted the claim and decreed the suit, holding the plaintiffs to be joint owners in possession. However, the lower appellate court reversed the decision, finding that the settlement document (Mark A) recorded possession of the disputed property with Hariya, and that Fakir Chand (DW1) admitted the joint ownership and clarified distribution of possession among the heirs. The site plan relied upon by the plaintiffs was identical to the one produced in earlier litigation, showing defendants’ possession prior to 2010.
In second appeal, the plaintiffs argued that they were dispossessed only on 01.02.2010. The High Court rejected this, holding that the possession of the defendants predated 2010 and was consistent with the 1960 family settlement. Since no substantial question of law arose, the appeal was dismissed.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower appellate court’s judgment and confirming that the defendants were in possession as co-sharers under the family settlement. Pending applications were also dismissed.