Lachhman Singh & Ors. v. Ram Singh

Mr. H.S.Dhandi, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.G.S.Jaswal, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the defendant, (herein the appellant) against the judgment and decree dated

13.6.1986, delivered by the Court of Addl. District Judge, Ambala, whereby the judgment and decree dated 26.11.1985 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff by the Sub Judge, IInd Class, Jagadhri, was affirmed. Brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant/respondent for possession of land measuring 1K-14M comprised in Khasra Nos. 24 and 26, situated within the Abadi deh of village Kurewala, Tehsil Jagdahri, District Ambala and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from interfering in possession over the land measuring 18 marlas, comprised in khasra No. 25 situated within the abadi deh of village Kurewala. The plaintiff averred in RSA No.1695 of 1989 2 the plaint that the entire land was given by the Chief of Kalsia State in Muafee to forefathers of Shri Joginder Singh (plaintiff/appellant No.1) etc. It was further case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1/appellant purchased the land in village Kurewala from Dharam Singh and Hazoora Singh under whom Sada Ram, Singh Ram and defendant/respondent Ram Singh and some other persons were Murussees. The plaintiff No. 1 also purchased the corresponding share in the shamlat deh and abadi deh of vendors. As Singh Ram died issueless on 5.5.1982, the plaintiffs/appellants took possession of the Khasra Nos. 24 and 26. But after some time, the defendant forcibly occupied the same and in connivance with Halqa Patwari, he got wrongly made an entry regarding khasra girdwari in his name. Shri Sada Ram died on 15.3.1984 and after his death, the plaintiffs, who are the proprietors of the village, took possession of Khasra No.25, which is still in their possession. But the defendant managed to get the entries of the khasra girdawari in his name. The plaintiffs also averred that the defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit land. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that the suit land was previously in possession of Sh.Sada Ram and Singh Ram as occupancy tenants, who became owners of the same by virtue of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (vesting of proprietory rights) Act 1953. After their death, he is exclusively in cultivating possession of the suit land because they were his uncles. After the death of Sh. Singh Ram, the defendant is cultivating the land bearing khasra Nos. 24 and 26, exclusively as his heir and after the death of Sada Ram, he is exclusively cultivating Khasra No.25. The defendant further took the stand that Sh.Sada Ram executed a valid Will in his favour. RSA No.1695 of 1989 3 On pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are co-owners of the land mentioned in the heading of the plaintiff so to that effect? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

4. Relief. After hearing both the parties and allowing the parties to lead evidence, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.5.1987 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by the first appellate Court. Hence, the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that both the courts below, without properly appreciating the evidence available on record decided issue no.1, against the appellants in spite of ample evidence proving their possession over land in dispute. The first appellate court also reversed the findings qua issues No.2 and 3 despite the fact that the same were not challenged by the defendant/respondent, which shows that the first appellate court has passed the judgment and decree without application of mind. On the other hand, learned counsel defendant/respondent submits that the suit land was previously in RSA No.1695 of 1989 4 possession of Sada Ram and Singh Ram as occupancy tenants and they became the owners of the same by virtue of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1953. He has further submitted that after the death of Sada Ram and Singh Ram, the defendant/respondent was cultivating the suit land as Sada Ram and Singh Ram were his uncles. The learned counsel also submitted that Sada Ram had executed a valid will in his favour in the year 1971. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. In the present case, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. However, by way of abundant caution, this Court has re-appreciated the entire evidence to satisfy the conscience of the Court and in order to examine whether the judgments and decree of both the courts below are perverse.” As per copy of jamabandi, Exhibit P7, for the year 1963-64, it is established that Sada Ram was in possession of Khasra Nos. 24 and 26 and no lagaan was being paid by them. In Kharif 1984 land comprised in Khasra Nos. 24 and 26 had been shown in cultivation possession of defendant/respondent Ram Singh, while copy of khasra girdawari reflects that Khasra No.25 had been shown under the cultivating possession of Sada Ram for the Kharif 1982 to Kharif 1984. However, abadi deh has been shown to be in possession of owner of the land, which suggests that after the enforcement of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1953, Sada Ram and Ram Singh became the owner of the land under their occupation as tenant. It has also come on record that on the basis of Will made by Sada Ram, the land was mutated in favour of RSA No.1695 of 1989 5 respondent No.1 after the death of Sada Ram. There is no evidence on record indicating that the respondent forcibly took the possession of Khasra Nos. 24 and 26. As regards Khasra No. 25, it has come on record that the same is in possession of defendant/respondent. Besides this, it is also proved on record that Lachhman Singh, appellant No.1, purchased the share of land from Dharam Singh and Hazoora Singh, and also purchased the corresponding share in the shamlat deh and abadi deh of the vendors. In the circumstances, this Court feels that both the courts below have rightly held that the plaintiffs/appellants failed to prove that they are owner of the suit land and were in possession of khasra No.25. As regards contention regarding issues No. 2 and 3, the first appellate Court has rightly reversed the findings on these issues as it is sufficiently proved that the appellants are not in possession of the suit land and they were also not co-owners of the suit land. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that no law point much less the substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. So, there is no scope to interfere in the judgments and decrees of both the courts below. In Madvan Nair V. Bhaskar Pillai, (2005) 10, SCC 533, Harjeet Singh v. Amrik Singh, (2005) 12 S.C.C. 270, H.P. Pyareja v. Dasappa,