In RSA No.1751 of 2022 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- Owners, who were illegally ousted from possession of suit property, had right to assert their possession and take it back by filing suit for possession: P&H HC
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya [27-09-2022]

Read Order: Gurjant Singh and Another v. Baljeet Singh and Others

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, September 29, 2022:  The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that once the plaintiffs who were in ownership of the suit land through their father on the basis of sale deed, were illegally ousted from possession of the suit property, they had the right to assert their possession and take it back by filing a suit for possession. 

“There is no illegality or irregularity about the same”, added Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya.

The facts in brief are that the plaintiffs claimed to be owners of the plot in question. They argued that their grandfather purchased the plot in 1987 and later, the ownership of the plot got transferred to the plaintiffs. It was further pleaded that appellants-defendants illegally occupied the plot/property in question in 2006 being trespassers. It was contended that even after repeated requests, the defendants did not vacate the land in question, thus leading to the filing of the present suit. 

The defendants pleaded the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs intentionally gave wrong dimensions and sides of the plot in order to grab the defendants’ plot. The defendants also claimed themselves to be the owner in possession of the plot while arguing that since the plot fell within the village, there was no record of ownership in the shape of a revenue record. Even the plot mentioned in the sale deed and in the site plan attached with the sale deed, did not tally with the defendants’ plot.  

The Trial Court decreed the suit for possession of this vacant plot. The appeal against the same was also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. Hence, the present second appeal was filed. 

The Counsel for the appellants, while stating that the normal rule of ownership of land within abadi deh is ownership follows possession, argued that the plaintiffs were not in possession, therefore, ownership could not be claimed by them and the suit was liable to be dismissed. Also, it was argued that in the absence of any revenue document like rapat roznamcha with respect to land situated within lal lakeer or lal dora, no valid sale of the suit land could be said to have taken place. He also argued that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was beyond limitation, as they did not assert their possession of the suit land from 2006 till 2015, therefore, the suit was barred by time. 

After hearing the parties, the Court observed that the normal rule of ownership of land within abadi deh of the village or within the village, that ownership follows possession, cannot be invoked to non-suit the plaintiffs. Further, the Court also observed that the plaintiffs had the possession as well as the ownership. 

“Once, they were illegally ousted from possession of the suit property, they had the right to assert their possession and take it back by filing a suit for possession, and that is what was done by the plaintiffs. There is no illegality or irregularity about the same. The normal rule of ownership of land within abadi deh of village, relied upon by the learned counsel, therefore, does not work to the plaintiffs’ disadvantage in any manner”, the Court held. 

Addressing the next argument that the suit was time barred, the Court observed that  it was only on account of assurance given by the defendants to vacate the suit land and hand-over possession to the plaintiffs by March 2015, that the suit could not be earlier filed. 

“Besides, the plaintiffs have sought possession over the suit property being owners on the basis of the sale deed. As per the limitation Act, the limitation for seeking relief of possession on the basis of ownership is 12 years. Therefore, finding on this issue also is without exception, and needs no interference”, the Court held. 

Thus, the appeal was dismissed.