The High Court
Case Details
RSA No.1693 of 2019 (O&M) S. No.110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No.1693 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.04.2025 Narbir Singh and others .....Appellants Balkar Singh (deceased) through his LRs and others .....Respondents Vs.
Legal Reasoning
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Rohit Singh and Mr. Satwant Singh, Advocates for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral) Suit for par(cid:30)(cid:30)on regarding property in dispute filed by the plain(cid:30)ffs – Narbir Singh and others (appellants herein) was dismissed by the trial Court of learned Addi(cid:30)onal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide judgment dated 07.05.2014. Against the said judgment, both the par(cid:30)es went in appeal. Both the appeals were dismissed vide common judgment dated 20.10.2018 by the First Appellate Court of learned Addi(cid:30)onal District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. Against these concurrent findings, plain(cid:30)ffs have approached this Court by way of the Regular Second Appeal. 2. The facts, in brief, emerging on perusal of the paper book are that the suit property measuring 58 kanals 16 marlas as detailed in the plaint was an evacuee property, which was allo9ed to one Joginder Nath. Said Joginder Nath donated the property to defendant No.2 – i.e. Bharat Sewak Samaj, Ambala City (respondent No.2 herein). Shri Diwan Singh son of Rija Singh was recorded to be tenant in possession on the suit property. Diwan Singh expired, leaving behind two sons, namely, Balkar Singh and Mukh(cid:30)ar Singh. Plain(cid:30)ffs are the successors- in-interest of Mukh(cid:30)ar Singh, whereas defendant No.1 is Balkar Singh and a;er his death, his legal representa(cid:30)ves were brought on record before the First Appellate Court. RENU 2025.04.03 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.1 out of 4 pages RSA No.1693 of 2019 (O&M) 3. According to plain(cid:30)ffs, a;er the death of Diwan Singh, tenancy rights were inherited by both of his sons, Balkar Singh and Mukh(cid:30)ar Singh, who remained in joint possession. Both of them were in Army and a;er their re(cid:30)rement, they managed the suit property jointly. Mukh(cid:30)ar Singh expired in 1991 and so, plain(cid:30)ffs being his successors became joint tenants over the suit land along with defendant No.1. This arrangement remained (cid:30)ll 2004, when family disputes started regarding management and cul(cid:30)va(cid:30)on of the family property. The property owned by the par(cid:30)es was mutually par(cid:30)(cid:30)oned. However, defendant No.1 refused for par(cid:30)(cid:30)on of the suit land on the ground that it was tenancy property and plain(cid:30)ffs did not have the right to seek its par(cid:30)(cid:30)on. With these averments, plain(cid:30)ffs prayed for par(cid:30)(cid:30)on of the suit property, claiming separate possession of ½ share. 4. Defendant No.1 – Balkar Singh opposed the suit denying the plain(cid:30)ffs to be in joint possession of the suit property. According to him, a;er the death of Diwan Singh, suit land was given by the owner – defendant No.2 to him only and he is cul(cid:30)va(cid:30)ng the suit land and that the plain(cid:30)ffs never cul(cid:30)vated the same. Defendant No.1 further disputed the jurisdic(cid:30)on of the Civil Court to entertain suit for par(cid:30)(cid:30)on, submiAng that the plain(cid:30)ffs had already filed an applica(cid:30)on for par(cid:30)(cid:30)on before Assistant Collector and, as such, the suit was not maintainable. 5. Defendant No.2 in its separate wri9en statement denied plain(cid:30)ffs to be joint tenants in possession along with defendant No.1 and suppor(cid:30)ng the stand of defendant No.1, by submiAng that only said defendant No.1 was inducted as a tenant afresh a;er the death of Diwan Singh. Said defendant No.2 also prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. Issues were framed and Evidence produced by the par(cid:30)es was taken on record. The trial Court held the plain(cid:30)ffs and defendant No.1 to be joint tenants in possession of the suit land. However, suit was held to be not maintainable for par(cid:30)(cid:30)on of the tenancy rights in the suit property. Suit was accordingly dismissed vide judgment dated 07.05.2014. RENU 2025.04.03 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.2 out of 4 pages RSA No.1693 of 2019 (O&M) 7. Both the par(cid:30)es went in appeal. Plain(cid:30)ffs assailed the findings, whereby relief of par(cid:30)(cid:30)on was declined; whereas defendant No.1 assailed the finding of the trial Court, whereby plain(cid:30)ffs were held to be joint tenants along with him (defendant No.1) in possession of the suit property. However, both these appeals have been dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 20.10.2018. 8. Against the concurrent findings of the Courts below to the effect that plain(cid:30)ffs were joint tenants along with defendant No.1 in the suit property, no further appeal has been preferred by the defendants. 9. It is only the plain(cid:30)ffs, who have approached this Court by way of the present Regular Second Appeal, claiming that there is no bar to par(cid:30)(cid:30)on of the tenancy rights in the suit property. 10. 11. There is no merit in the conten(cid:30)on. Sec(cid:30)on 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 reads as under:- “111. Applica;on for par;;on. - Any joint owner of land, or any joint tenant of a tenancy in which a right of occupancy subsists, may apply to a Revenue- officer for par(cid:30)(cid:30)on of his share in the land or tenancy ; as the case may be, if - (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3) at the date of the applica(cid:30)on the share is recorded under Chapter IV as belonging to him ; or (cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:3) his right to the share has been established by a decree which is s(cid:30)ll subsis(cid:30)ng at that date ; or (cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:3) a wri9en acknowledgement of that right has been executed by all persons interested in the admission or denial thereof.” 12. It is evident from the afore-said provision that it is either any of the joint owners of the land; or any joint tenant of a tenancy, in which right of occupancy subsists, who may apply to the Revenue officer for par(cid:30)(cid:30)on of the share in the land or tenancy, as the case may be. Meaning thereby, apart from the joint owner, only that joint tenant can seek par(cid:30)(cid:30)on of his share in the tenancy, who has right of occupancy. RENU 2025.04.03 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.3 out of 4 pages RSA No.1693 of 2019 (O&M) 13. In the present case, plain(cid:30)ffs have not pleaded that they or their predecessor Mukh(cid:30)ar Singh were occupancy tenants in the suit property. As such, the Courts below have rightly held that suit for par(cid:30)(cid:30)on of the tenancy rights was not maintainable, par(cid:30)cularly when the owner – defendant No.2 had not consented for the par(cid:30)(cid:30)on and rather, had denied the tenancy of plain(cid:30)ffs. Although stand of defendant No.2 – owner to the effect that plain(cid:30)ffs are not joint tenants along with defendant No.1, has been rejected by both the Courts below but at the same (cid:30)me, the said stand of defendant No.2 clearly reflects that said owner has not consented for the par(cid:30)(cid:30)on of the tenancy rights. 14. In view of the afore-said discussion, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the judgments passed by the Courts below. There is no ground calling for any interference. 15. Dismissed. April 02, 2025 renu (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/No Yes/No RENU 2025.04.03 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.4 out of 4 pages