Rameshwar Dass & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors

RSA-5697-2018 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
109 RSA-5697-2018 (O&M)
Date of decision: 28.10.2026
Rameshwar Dass (deceased) through LRs and others
....Appellants
Vs.
Union of India and others
....Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate
for the appellants.
*
HARSH BUNGER J.
CM-15662-C-2018:
Prayer in the present application (CM-15662-C-2018), for
impleading the legal heirs of deceased-appellant No.3 (Babu Ram).
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the instant
application is allowed and the persons as mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the
instant application are impleaded as legal representatives of the
deceased-appellant No.3 (Babu Ram), in the array of parties, only for the
purpose of pursuing the instant matter. Amended Memorandum of Parties is
taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
Registry to do the needful.
Application is accordingly disposed of.
CM-15663-C-2018:
Prayer in the present application (CM-15663-C-2018), for
impleading the legal heirs of deceased-appellant No.4 (Puran Chand).
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-5697-2018 (O&M) -2-
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the instant
application is allowed and the persons as mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the
instant application are impleaded as legal representatives of the
deceased-appellant No.4 (Puran Chand), in the array of parties, only for the
purpose of pursuing the instant matter. Amended Memorandum of Parties is
taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
Registry to do the needful.
Application is accordingly disposed of.
CM-15664-C-2018:
Prayer in the present application (CM-15664-C-2018), for
impleading the legal heirs of deceased-appellant No.5 (Nathi Ram).
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the instant
application is allowed and the persons as mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the
instant application are impleaded as legal representatives of the
deceased-appellant No.5 (Nathi Ram), in the array of parties, only for the
purpose of pursuing the instant matter. Amended Memorandum of Parties is
taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
Registry to do the needful.
Application is accordingly disposed of.
CM-15665-C-2018:
Prayer in the present application (CM-15665-C-2018), for
impleading the legal heirs of deceased-appellant No.6 (Bhangi Ram).
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the instant
application is allowed and the persons as mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the
instant application are impleaded as legal representatives of the
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-5697-2018 (O&M) -3-
deceased-appellant No.6 (Bhangi Ram), in the array of parties, only for the
purpose of pursuing the instant matter. Amended Memorandum of Parties is
taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
Registry to do the needful.
Application is accordingly disposed of.
CM-15666-C-2018 in/and RSA-5697-2018 (O&M) :
1. For convenience, the parties herein are being addressed as per
their status in the original suit.
2. This is the plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgment
and decree dated 11.10.2012 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri as well as the judgment and
decree dated 16.01.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Yamuna
Nagar at Jagadhri.
3. Briefly, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that
the suit land measuring 281 Kanals - 12 Marlas out of total land measuring
469 Kanals - 10 Marlas comprised in Khewat/Khatoni No. 840/1184, Khasra
No. 201, situated at village Damla, Yamunanagar, was previously owned by
Mohammedans whereas the balance land measuring 181 Kanals - 18 Marlas
was owned by the Hindu community.
3.1 It is averred that at the time of partition of the country, the
Mohammedan community left the aforesaid land measuring 281 Kanals - 12
Marlas and migrated to Pakistan, whereupon the said land was transferred in
favour of defendant No. 1 (Union of India) and defendant No. 2 (Tehsildar
(Sales), Yamunanagar).
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-5697-2018 (O&M) -4-
3.2 According to the plaintiffs, they earlier filed partition
proceedings (case No. 157 titled as “Babu Ram vs. Custodian Department,
Ambala”) seeking partition of the aforesaid land, which was decided on
08.12.1983. It is averred that the land measuring 281 Kanals - 12 Marlas
owned by Union of India was separated and since 1983 the plaintiffs have
been running from pillar to post to get the land allotted in their favour. It is
stated that the plaintiffs are Harijan by caste and are landless persons and
according to the scheme of the Government, they are entitled for the land
vested in defendants No. 1 and 2.
3.3 The plaintiffs claimed that defendant No. 5 (Gram Panchayat,
Damla) has no concern with the suit land; however, defendant No. 5 in
collusion with defendants No. 1 and 2, has wrongly and illegally executed a
gift deed in favour of defendant No. 3 (Chaudhary Charan Singh University,
Hisar) and defendant No. 4 (Haryana Agricultural College, Damla).
3.4 The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property is actually evacuee
property which vests with the Union of India and any mutation sanctioned in
favour of the defendants is wrong, illegal, and not binding on the rights of
the plaintiffs. With the aforesaid averments, the suit was filed.
4. Upon issuance of notice, defendants No. 3 and 4 filed their
separate written statement taking various preliminary objections regarding
maintainability, locus standi, concealment of material facts, etc. On merits,
they denied the ownership and possession of the Mohammedan community.
It was further stated that during the consolidation proceedings, the land was
allotted in the new abadi and that the Gram Panchayat was owner in
possession of the suit property. It was next stated that defendants No. 1 and 2
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-5697-2018 (O&M) -5-
have no right, title or concern with the suit property nor there is any scheme
of the Government to allot the land to the plaintiffs.
4.1 It is the pleaded case of defendants No. 3 and 4 that the Gram
Panchayat, being the owner in possession of the suit property, had gifted the
same to them, and the objections regarding the gift deed have already been
dismissed by various Courts and upheld by the High Court. Defendants No.
3 and 4 claimed that they are owners in possession of the suit property from
the date of the gift deed and that they have constructed a building on the spot
and are using the same as Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Damla.
4.2 It is also stated that the Gram Panchayat has gifted the land to
them to set up Krishi Vigyan Kendra with the permission of the Haryana
Government vide its order dated 20.04.1993 and the Gram Panchayat has
also executed a registered sale deed dated 07.03.1995 in favour of
defendants No. 3 and 4. It is averred that some villagers had filed a writ
petition before the High Court which was dismissed and the civil suit(s) in
respect of the said property have also been dismissed. The other averments
of the plaint were denied and prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.
5. Defendant No. 5 (Gram Panchayat, Damla) also appeared in the
suit and filed its separate written statement taking various preliminary
objections and stating that defendants No. 1 and 2 have no concern with the
suit land and that defendants No. 3 and 4 are the owners in possession of the
suit property since the time of the gift deed. It was also stated that the
objections regarding the gift deed have been dismissed by various Courts
and upheld up to the High Court and that the plaintiffs have no concern with
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-5697-2018 (O&M) -6-
the suit property. The other averments of the plaint were denied and prayer
for dismissal of the suit was made.
6. From the pleading of the parties, following issues were framed
by the learned Trial Court:-
“1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for allotment of land
measuring 281 kanal 12 marla out of total land measuring
469K-10M as detailed in head note of the plaint? OPP
2. If issue no.1 is proved, then in consequence, whether
plaintiffs are entitled for mandatory injunction directing the
defendants no.1 and 2 to allot the above said land to the
plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from allotting land in favor of any other person
by way of sale, lease, gift mortgage or in any manner? OPP
3. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD
4. Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present
suit? OPD
5. Whether plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit
by their own act and conduct? OPD
6. Whether suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC? OPD
7. Whether suit is false and frivolous and is liable to be
dismissed with special costs? OPD
8. Relief.”
7. Thereafter, the parties led their respective evidence on the
aforesaid issues.
8. The learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the matter,
dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated
11.10.2012.
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-5697-2018 (O&M) -7-
9. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the
learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, which was
also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.01.2017.
10. In the aforementioned circumstances, the present regular second
appeal has been filed before this Court.
11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
perused the paperbook with his able assistance.
12. In the present case, the plaintiffs had filed a suit seeking
declaration that the suit property was earlier owned by Mohammedans and
upon their migration to Pakistan, the said land vested with the defendants
No. 1 and 2. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that since the plaintiffs are
Harijans by caste and also landless persons, therefore, as per the scheme of
the Government, they are entitled for the land which has vested with
defendants No. 1 and 2. However, defendant No. 5 (Gram Panchayat) has
wrongly gifted the suit property to defendants No. 3 and 4, which is wrong,
illegal and not binding on their rights.
12.1 On the other hand, defendants No. 3 and 4 opposed the claim of
the plaintiffs by stating that defendants No. 1 and 2 have no concern with the
suit property as the said land vested with the defendant No.5 (Gram
Panchayat), who has further gifted the land to them. It was further
maintained that the challenge to the gift deed has been rejected by various
Courts including this Court, and that the gift deed was legal and valid. They
further maintained that they have constructed Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Damla.
The suit land is stated to be gifted after taking due permission from the
Haryana Government vide its order dated 20.04.1993 and the Gram
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-5697-2018 (O&M) -8-
Panchayat has also executed a registered sale deed dated 07.03.1995 in
favour of defendants No. 3 and 4. Defendant No. 5 also took a similar stand
as taken by defendants No. 3 and 4.
13. The learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the matter, has
dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The findings returned by the learned trial
court have been further affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court by
observing as under:
“21. In the present case, plaintiffs are claiming their right,
title or interest over the suit property on the basis that the land
in dispute was owned by Muslims and they had migrated in
Pakistan, so, the plaintiffs being Harijan, are owners in
possession of the suit land and the alleged gift deed, if any,
executed by the defendants no. 1 and 2 in favour of defendants
no. 3 and 4, then the same is wrong, illegal, null and void.
22. In this case, this Court has to see as to how the plaintiffs
are having any right, title or interest in the suit property. This
Court wants to mention here that some of the villagers had filed
a writ petition bearing no. 10721 of 1993 titled as "Isham Singh
Vs. State of Haryana and others" before the Hon'ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, which was dismissed vide
judgment dated 04.4.1994. Certified copy of the said judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh is on the file. This Court wants to reproduce the
observations held by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High
Court, Chandigarh in the said judgment dated 04.4.1994, which
are as follows:-
"The learned counsel for the petitioners says that the
approval was given by the State Government subsequent
to the gift. No such inference is deducible from the
order of the State Government, reproduced supra. The
panchayat passed the resolution gifting the land and
sent it to the State Government for approval and the
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-5697-2018 (O&M) -9-
approval was granted. The gift was complete only when
the approval was accorded by the State Government as
enjoined under rule 13 of the Rules. Even otherwise,
there is no bar in law that the post-facto sanction of the
gift cannot be accorded. However, in the instant case,
apart from the bald assertion there is no material on
record to urge that post facto sanction was granted by
the State Government to the Panchayat to gift away the
land t60 Ch. Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural
University, Hissar, for the construction of Krishi Vigyan
Kendra at Yamuna Nagar.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition
fails and is dismissed."
23. When there is specific finding of the Hon'ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court, Chandigarh with regard to land claimed
in the gift deed, then, the plaintiffs are estopped to file the
present suit and thus, the suit of the plaintiffs is not
maintainable because the relief which has been sought by the
villagers in the writ petition was almost the same which has
been claimed by the plaintiffs in the present case.
24. Further, this Court wants to mention here that legal
representatives of Prem Dass had filed a suit for declaration
and that suit was also dismissed on 10.9.2004. Certified copy of
the said judgment is Ex. D3 on the file.
25. Jamabandi Ex. D8 is also on the file which is with regard
to the entire land wherein name of the plaintiffs have not been
mentioned in any of the capacity, which goes to show that the
plaintiffs are not having any right, title or interest over the suit
land property. When lis with regard to the property in question
has already been decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab
and Haryana, Chandigarh, then, by any stretch of imagination,
it cannot be said that the gift deed is illegal, null and void and is
liable to be set aside and that the plaintiffs are having right in
the suit property and that defendants no. 1 to 3 are not having
any right, title or interest in the suit property. There is specific
evidence on the file which goes to show this fact that the suit
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-5697-2018 (O&M) -10-
land was gifted by the Gram panchayat Dama vide gift deed
and the gift deed of the gram panchayat was approved by the
Haryana Government and the said order of the state
government was also challenged by one Isham Singh in CWP
No. 10721 of 1993. However, the Civil Writ Petition filed by
Isham Sigh was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order
dated 4.4.1994. Similarly, a civil suit No.459 of 1996 was filed
by one Prem Dass regarding some share of the suit land on the
plea that he is owner in possession of the said land. However,
the said suit was dismissed by the court of Sh. V.S. Malik, the
then learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna
Nagar at Jagadhri vide judgment and decree dated 10.9.2004.
In the said civil suit also, it was held that the land measuring
459 kanal-10 marla is owned and possessed by Agriculture
University, Hisar. Similarly, another civil suit no. 257 of 2000
was filed by Shiv Chander Nath for getting the possession of
land measuring 17 kanal out of the total land 459 kanals-10
marla, which was gifted by the gram panchayat in favour of
Agriculture University, but the said suit was also dismissed by
the court of Sh. Ashwani Kumar, then then learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Jagadhri vide judgment and decree dated
28.2.2009. So, there are several judgments and decrees and
orders on the file of this case which goes to show this fact that
the gift deed executed by the gram panchayat, Damla in favour
of Chaudhry Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture University,
Hissar is legal and the same was approved by the Government
of Haryana. When such is the situation, then, plaintiffs cannot
challenge the same and when the plaintiffs have no right in the
suit land, then, they have no right to challenge the gift deed.
Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned suit lower court
holding that the plaintiffs have failed to show any right, title or
interest under any policy of the government in respect of the suit
land are well reasoned and justified. Therefore, it can be said
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-5697-2018 (O&M) -11-
that the findings of the learned lower court recorded on all the
issues are well reasoned and justified and do not suffer from any
infirmity or illegality.
26. No other point or material was raised by either of the
parties before me.
27. Thus, as a consequence of the above discussion, this
court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality,
irregularity or infirmity in the finding arrived at by learned
lower court pertaining to all the issues and the same are hereby
affirmed. The judgment passed by the learned lower court is
well reasoned and justified and the learned lower court has
applied judicious mind while deciding all the issues.
28. Resultantly, in view of my above said discussion, it has to
be held that there is no illegality, irregularity or infirmity in the
impugned judgment and decree dated 11.10.2012 passed by
learned lower court. Hence, the present appeal fails and the
same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs…..”
14. Before this Court, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
has failed to show as to how the findings returned by the learned courts
below are either illegal, perverse, or based upon any misreading or
misappreciation of the evidence.
15. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
pressed his application (CM-15666-C-2018) for leading additional
evidence in the form of RTI information dated 09.01.2017 to contend that
Gram Panchayat was never the owner of the suit property.
16. Here it would be apposite to refer to Order 41 Rule 27 CPC,
which reads as under:-
“ 27. Production of Additional Evidence in Appellate Court:-
(1)  The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-5697-2018 (O&M) -12-
additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the
Appellate Court, But if:
(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred
has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been
admitted, or
(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence,
establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due
diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or
could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced
by him at the time when the decree appealed against was
passed, or
(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be
produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to
pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause,
the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to
be produced, or witness to be examined.
(2)   Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced
by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its
admission.”
16.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gobind Singh and Ors.
Vs Union of India and Ors.,2026(2) RCR(Civil) 81, observed as under:-
“11.3. Rule 27, being couched in negative terms, makes it
abundantly clear that parties to an appeal are not entitled to
adduce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, save
and except in the circumstances expressly enumerated therein.
The provision contemplates only three eventualities in which
additional evidence may be permitted: first, where the court
which passed the decree has refused to admit evidence which
ought to have been admitted; second, where the party seeking to
adduce such evidence establishes that, notwithstanding the
exercise of due diligence, the evidence was not within its
knowledge or could not have been produced at the time when
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-5697-2018 (O&M) -13-
the decree under appeal was passed; and third, where the
appellate court itself requires any document to be produced or
any witness to be examined in order to enable it to pronounce
judgment or for any other substantial cause.”
17. It is also well-settled that the additional evidence cannot be
permitted to be adduced so as to fill up the lacunae or to patch up the weak
points in the case.
18. It is worth noticing that the RTI information is stated to be
dated 09.01.2017 (received on 13.01.2017) and a reading of vernacular
thereof would show that the said information is provided by Sarpanch Gram
Panchayat Damla on 09.01.2017 stating that khasra No.201, situated at
Damla, is not the ownership of Gram Panchayat and the said land is in the
name of “Abadi Deh Bashindgan Deh” .
18.1 I have considered the aforesaid document which is sought to be
produced by way of additional evidence; however, the same does not
advance the case of the applicants/appellants. It is not forthcoming that the
information provided on 09.01.2017 is based upon revenue record of which
year and there is no reference to any khewat number also.
18.2 Furthermore, if such information is based upon any revenue
record then applicants/appellants should have placed on record such revenue
record before the learned Trial Court or atleast before the learned First
Appellate Court , however, no such steps were taken at the relevant time. In
the absence of any basis on which such information has been provided, no
reliance can be placed thereon.
18.3 In “Govindasamy (Died) v. Devendran”, Law Finder Doc Id
#1963487 ; Hon'ble Madras High Court, made the following observation:
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-5697-2018 (O&M) -14-
"18. Initially, in respect of Document No.8, it was admitted
that the said documents were received by the appellant under
Right to Information Act. In this regard, in a case of Ashish
Kumar Saxena v. State of UP, our Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that the information obtained through the Right to Information
(RTI) Act need not necessarily be reliable. Therefore,
Document No.8, the entire set of documents obtained form the
RTI Officer, Cheyyar, is not a reliable document and on that
score alone, the said documents are not having any relevant to
decide the issue..."
18.4 Accordingly, I find no substance in the application (CM-15666-
C-2018) for leading additional evidence and the same is accordingly,
dismissed .
19. Apparently, there are concurrent findings of fact returned by the
learned Courts below.
20. In Jaichand v. Sahnulal, 2025(2) Apex Court Judgments (SC)
336 ; Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
“24. In Navaneethammal v. Arjuna Chetty reported in AIR
1996 S.C. 3521 , it was held by this Court that the High Court
should not reappreciate the evidence to reach another possible
view in order to set aside the findings of fact arrived at by the
first appellate Court.
25. In Kshitisn Chandra Purkait v. Santhosh Kumar Purkait
reported in (1997) 5 S.C.C. 438) , this Court held that in the
Second Appeal, the High Court should be satisfied that the case
involves a substantial question of law and not mere question of
law.
26. In Dnyanoba Bhaurao Shemade v. Maroti Bhaurao
Marnor reported in 1999 (2) S.C.C. 471 , this Court held:-
"Keeping in view the amendment made in 1976, the High Court
can exercise its jurisdiction under Section 100, C.P.C. only on
the basis of substantial questions of law which are to be framed
at the time of admission of the Second Appeal and the Second
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-5697-2018 (O&M) -15-
Appeal has to be heard and decided only on the basis of such
duly framed substantial questions of law. A judgment rendered
by the High Court under Section 100 C.P.C. without following
the aforesaid procedure cannot be sustained."
27. This Court in Kondira Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai
Sopan Gujar reported in AIR 1999 S.C. 2213 held:-
"The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the
opinion of the first appellate Court unless it is found that
the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were
erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of
law applicable or its settled position on the basis of
pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based
upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without
evidence."
28. It is thus clear that under Section 100, C.P.C., the High
Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the
first Appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in
such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary
to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the
basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based
upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence…”
21. Considering the totality of the circumstances, I see no
compelling reason which may warrant interference by this Court in the
present proceedings. There is no substantial question of law involved for
consideration by this Court.
22. Resultantly, the instant regular second appeal fails and the same
is accordingly, dismissed .
23. All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
(HARSH BUNGER)
28.10.2026 JUDGE
Ankit
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
ANKIT
2026.11.05 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh