Read Order: Manjinder Singh and Another v. Baldev Singh and Another

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, March 31, 2022: While dealing with a regular second appeal, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that he demarcation report of property is only one piece of evidence in the Civil Court and the correctness of such a report is to be appreciated on the basis of the entire evidence produced by the parties.

The Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal also added that a private individual who demarcated the suit property without any intervention of the Civil Court is not a Local Commissioner under the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC

In this case, the defendants called into question the correctness of the concurrent findings of facts, arrived at by both the Courts below, while decreeing the suit, filed by the plaintiffs, for grant of decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession or dispossessing them. 

It was the case of the plaintiffs that they installed a Fuel Station and the defendants had no right to interfere in the same. The defendants did not dispute the existence of the Fuel Station, however, they claimed that the plaintiffs encroached upon a portion of their land.

It was noted that both the Courts below, on appreciation of evidence, found that the defendants, in their cross-examination, admitted that the plaintiffs were in settled possession of the property to their knowledge for a long time. The appellants also, claimed that the plaintiffs encroached upon the property on the basis of the demarcation made in 2013. 

The Court observed at the outset that both the Courts below, on appreciation of evidence, found that the revenue official failed to carry out the demarcation in a proper manner as per the procedure laid down in the High Court Rules and Orders. 

On the issue of demarcation, the case of counsel representing the appellant was that once a demarcation was conducted by the revenue official, then it was for the plaintiffs to object or challenge its correctness before the revenue authorities. 

The High Court observed that admittedly, the appellants got the land demarcated privately without any intervention from the Civil Court, and therefore, the High Court was of the opinion that such an official was not a Local Commissioner as per Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC. 

Further, Justice Kshetarpal added that the demarcation report is only one piece of evidence in the Civil Court and that the correctness of such a report is to be appreciated on the basis of the entire evidence produced by the parties. Hence, the Court adjudged that the appellant’s counsel was not correct in contending that in the absence of objection, such a report is to be accepted by the Civil Court.

Accordingly, the Court, finding no ground for interference, dismissed the present application.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment