9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibited by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, but makes the Appellants absolute owner. In the case of Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand and Ors. [1993 (8) TMI 317 - Supreme Court] , this Court held that the entries in jamabandi are not proof of title in respect of an immoveable property. In the case of Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh and Ors. [1993 (9) TMI 370 - Supreme Court] , this Court observed that entries made by patwari in official record are only for the purpose of records and do not by itself prove the correctness of the same nor can statutory presumption be drawn on the same, particularly, in the absence of corroborative evidence. The Respondent cannot claim to have acquired title over the suit property by pleading adverse possession only in the absence of the name of the Appellants in the revenue records. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is erroneous in law and suffers from infirmity and is required to be interfered with by this Court - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Civil Appeal No. 2151 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2489 of 2011) - - - Dated:- 1-3-2016 - V. Gopala Gowda and U.U. Lalit, JJ. JUDGMEN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts therein Kewal Krishan and Rajinder Krishan were no more the owners of the suit land as the same had been purchased by them vide registered sale deeds dated 17.10.1966 and 07.01.1967. 7. The Civil Suit No. 133/2002 of 1990 was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kurukshetra vide order dated 20.08.2002. The learned Civil Judge held that there was no valid and cogent reason to declare the judgment and order dated 10.02.1988 as illegal, null and void and that the Plaintiff-Appellants were not entitled for the relief of joint possession whatsoever. It was further held that Respondent No. 1 had perfected his title over the suit land by prescription and adverse possession. 8. Aggrieved of the aforementioned judgment and order, the Appellants filed Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2002/2004 before the Additional District Judge challenging the correctness of the same. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 31.03.2005 and held that Respondent No. 1 cannot be held to have acquired legal right to claim ownership over the suit property by pleading adverse possession, as mere mutation entry in his name in the record does not create or con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by filing Civil Suit No. 655 of 1987 for declaration of their ownership over the suit property by adverse possession. 12. The learned senior Counsel further contends that the High Court erred in not appreciating the fact that the ex-parte decree dated 10.02.1988 has no force in law, as the same was passed against the predecessors in the interest of the present Appellants and not against the present Appellants, who were not even party to the said suit and therefore, the decision of the same is not binding on them. 13. On the other hand, Ms. Naresh Bakshi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents contends that the High Court was right in setting aside the judgment and order of the first appellate court as the same is legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. The same does not warrant any interference with by this Court. 14. The learned Counsel further brought to the attention of this Court the fact that the Appellants intentionally concealed the material fact that Respondent No. 4 herein had already approached this Court by way of filing S.L.P.C.C. No. 7808 of 2010 (the facts of which were identical to the facts of the instant case), which relates to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to mention that the controversy in the instant case is based essentially on the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the parties. It is also worthwhile to mention in this judgment that in the Written Statement, the deceased Respondent No. 1 did not mention the fact of his having been previously inducted as lessee on the suit land by the previous owners vide lease deed dated 06.01.1967 which had taken place prior to the execution of the two sale-deeds dated 17.10.1966 and 07.01.1967 in favour of Appellant No. 1 and his mother Kaushalya Rani. 20. The contention advanced on behalf of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents that this appeal deserves to be dismissed as the Appellants have suppressed the material fact of rejection of the earlier SLP filed by Surinder Nath Kapoor (pro forma Respondent No. 4 herein) cannot be accepted as the same is untenable. Rejection of the said SLP does not bind the present Appellants in any manner whatsoever, as they were not party to the same. 21. In addition to the abovementioned reason, the contention advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents that the Appellants failed to get the mutation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
