The High Court
Case Details
RSA-1945-1995 1995 (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA RSA-1945-1995 (O&M) Reserved on: Reserved on:-07.11.2025 Pronounced Pronounced on:- 01.12.2025 Uploaded on:-02.12.2025 Uploaded on: Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment du (deceased) through LRs Chandu (deceased) through LRs ....Appellant VERSUS Gopi (deceased) through LR (deceased) through LRs ....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUST ICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Sr. Advocate assisted by Present: Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Nikita Goel and Mr. Daanish Mahajan, Advocates Ms. Nikita Goel and Mr. Daanish Mahajan, Advocates Ms. Nikita Goel and Mr. Daanish Mahajan, Advocates For LRs of the appellant. For LRs of the appellant. Mr. Aman Arora, Advocate and Mr. Aman Arora, Advocate and Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.1(i) Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.1(i) Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.1(i) Respondents No.1(ii) and 1 (iii) proceeded against ex-parte Respondents No.1(ii) and 1 (iii) proceeded against ex Respondents No.1(ii) and 1 (iii) proceeded against ex vide order dated 23.09.2025 vide order dated 23.09.2025 -.- MANDEEP PANNU, J. MANDEEP PANNU, J. 1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant– The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant
Facts
he learned plaintiff against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the learned plaintiff against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby t plaintiff against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby t Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.1993, dismissed the suit of the Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.1993, dismissed the suit of the Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.1993, dismissed the suit of the Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.1993, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for possession and the learned Lower Appellate Court, vide judgment and plaintiff for possession and the learned Lower Appellate Court, vide judgment and plaintiff for possession and the learned Lower Appellate Court, vide judgment and plaintiff for possession and the learned Lower Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.1995, upheld the said dismissal. decree dated 07.04.1995, upheld the said dismissal. decree dated 07.04.1995, upheld the said dismissal. Brief Facts 2. up by the plaintiff is that he had become owner of the The case set up by the plaintiff is that he had become owner of the up by the plaintiff is that he had become owner of the The case set agricultural land comprised in Khewat No.160 situated in the revenue estate of agricultural land comprised in Khewat No.160 situated in the revenue estate of agricultural land comprised in Khewat No.160 situated in the revenue estate of agricultural land comprised in Khewat No.160 situated in the revenue estate of Village Andhop, Tehsil Hathin, District Faridabad Village Andhop, Tehsil Hathin, by acquiring occupancy rights District Faridabad by acquiring occupancy rights TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.02 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1945-1995 1995 (O&M) -2- - therein, and that the defendants were in permissive posse therein, and that the defendants were in ssion of the suit land as permissive possession of the suit land as ee under him. It was pleaded that after acquiring the occupancy rights, the licencee under him. It was pleaded that after acquiring the occupancy rights, the ee under him. It was pleaded that after acquiring the occupancy rights, the ee under him. It was pleaded that after acquiring the occupancy rights, the plaintiff terminated the licence of the defendants and required them to deliver plaintiff terminated the licence of the defendants and required them to deliver plaintiff terminated the licence of the defendants and required them to deliver plaintiff terminated the licence of the defendants and required them to deliver ed to do so, leading to the filing possession of the suit land, but the defendants failed to do so, leading to the filing possession of the suit land, but the defendants fail possession of the suit land, but the defendants fail of the suit. 3. , in his Defendant No.1 was proceeded ex parte. Defendant No.2, in his Defendant No.1 was proceeded ex parte Defendant No.1 was proceeded ex parte written statement, broadly denied the plaintiff’s assertions and contended that the written statement, broadly denied the plaintiff’s assertions and contended that the written statement, broadly denied the plaintiff’s assertions and contended that the written statement, broadly denied the plaintiff’s assertions and contended that the tandi to file it, and further suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had no locus standi to file it, and further suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had no locus s suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had no locus s pleaded that the plaintiff was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the pleaded that the plaintiff was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the pleaded that the plaintiff was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the pleaded that the plaintiff was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit. The defendant asserted that he had been in possession of the suit land present suit. The defendant asserted that he had been in possession of the suit land present suit. The defendant asserted that he had been in possession of the suit land present suit. The defendant asserted that he had been in possession of the suit land in the for more than thirty years as a mortgagee and had become owner of the land, in the for more than thirty years as a mortgagee and had become o for more than thirty years as a mortgagee and had become o alternative, he set up a plea of ownership by adverse possession. alternative, he set up a plea of ownership by adverse possession. alternative, he set up a plea of ownership by adverse possession. 4. The plaintiff, in his replication, reiterated his case and denied the The plaintiff, in his replication, reiterated his case and denied the The plaintiff, in his replication, reiterated his case and denied the The plaintiff, in his replication, reiterated his case and denied the pleas raised by the defendant. pleas raised by the defendant. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings following issues were framed On the basis of the rival pleadings following issues On the basis of the rival pleadings following issues 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit land? OPP Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit land? OPP 2. Whether the defendants are in possession of the suit land as Whether the defendants are in possession of the suit land as Whether the defendants are in possession of the suit land as ees under the plaintiff, and if so, to what effect? OPP licencees under the plaintiff, and if so, to what effect? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD from filing the present suit? OPD 5. Relief. 6. Both sides led oral and documentary evidence in support of their Both sides led oral and documentary evidence in support of their Both sides led oral and documentary evidence in support of their Both sides led oral and documentary evidence in support of their various years, respective stands, which included revenue records, jamabandis of various years, respective stands, which included revenue records, jamabandis of respective stands, which included revenue records, jamabandis of khasra girdawaris, and an order of the Assistant Collector khasra girdawaris, and an order of the Assistant Collector Grade I. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.02 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1945-1995 1995 (O&M) Findings of the Trial Court Findings of the Trial Court -3- - 7. The Trial Court, upon appreciating the oral and documentary The Trial Court, upon appreciating the oral and documentary The Trial Court, upon appreciating the oral and documentary The Trial Court, upon appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish his ownership over the suit evidence, concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish his ownership over the suit evidence, concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish his ownership over the suit evidence, concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish his ownership over the suit land as the entries in the revenue record consistently showed the defendants and land as the entries in the revenue record consistently showed the defendants and land as the entries in the revenue record consistently showed the defendants and land as the entries in the revenue record consistently showed the defendants and (mortgagees with possession) and tenants, their predecessors as Gair Morusi Doen (mortgagees with possession) and tenants, (mortgagees with possession) and tenants, their predecessors as whereas the plaintiff had not produced any credible evidence rebutting the whereas the plaintiff had not produced any credible evidence rebutting the whereas the plaintiff had not produced any credible evidence rebutting the whereas the plaintiff had not produced any credible evidence rebutting the presumption of truth attached to these entries. T presumption of he documents relied upon by the truth attached to these entries. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff, including the order Ex.P3 and decree Ex. plaintiff, including the order Ex. P4 regarding alleged acquisition Ex.P4 regarding alleged acquisition standing revenue entries and of occupancy rights, were held inconsistent with long-standing revenue entries and of occupancy rights, were held inconsistent with long of occupancy rights, were held inconsistent with long thus insufficient to prove ownership, especially when the plaintiff had admittedly thus insufficient to prove ownership, especially when the plaintiff had admittedly thus insufficient to prove ownership, especially when the plaintiff had admittedly thus insufficient to prove ownership, especially when the plaintiff had admittedly rther, the defendants’ mortgaged his tenancy rights prior to such orders. Further, the defendants’ mortgaged his tenancy rights prior to such orders mortgaged his tenancy rights prior to such orders possession for more than 30 years without redemption of the mortgage was possession for more than 30 years without redemption of the mortgage was possession for more than 30 years without redemption of the mortgage was possession for more than 30 years without redemption of the mortgage was accepted, making the defendants owners by prescription, and consequently the plea accepted, making the defendants owners by prescription, and consequently the plea accepted, making the defendants owners by prescription, and consequently the plea accepted, making the defendants owners by prescription, and consequently the plea that they were licencees under the plaintiff was rejected. S that they were licen s were nder the plaintiff was rejected. Since the defendants were found to be in lawful possession as sub-tenants/mortgagees and not as licen found to be in lawful possession as sub ees, tenants/mortgagees and not as licencees, and the plaintiff having neither redeemed the mortgage nor challenged the revenue and the plaintiff having neither redeemed the mortgage nor challenged the revenue and the plaintiff having neither redeemed the mortgage nor challenged the revenue and the plaintiff having neither redeemed the mortgage nor challenged the revenue entries, the suit was held not maintainable and devoid of merit, leading to entries, the suit was held not maintainable and devoid of merit, leading to entries, the suit was held not maintainable and devoid of merit, leading to entries, the suit was held not maintainable and devoid of merit, leading to dismissal. Findings of the Lower Appellate Court Findings of the Lower Appellate Court 8. appraisal of the entire The Lower Appellate Court, upon a thorough re-appraisal of the entire The Lower Appellate Court, upon a thorough re The Lower Appellate Court, upon a thorough re evidence, upheld the dismissal of the suit by holding that the revenue record evidence, upheld the dismissal of the suit by holding that the revenue record evidence, upheld the dismissal of the suit by holding that the revenue record evidence, upheld the dismissal of the suit by holding that the revenue record spanning several decades consistently depicted spanning several decades consistently depicted spanning several decades consistently depicted spanning several decades consistently depicted the defendants and the defendants and the defendants and the defendants and their their their their rtgagees with possession) under an oral predecessors as Gair Morusi Doen (mortgagees with possession) under an oral rtgagees with possession) under an oral predecessors as mortgage created by the plaintiff himself, and that the plaintiff never redeemed this mortgage created by the plaintiff himself, and that the plaintiff never redeemed this mortgage created by the plaintiff himself, and that the plaintiff never redeemed this mortgage created by the plaintiff himself, and that the plaintiff never redeemed this mortgage within the prescribed period, thereby allowing the defendants to mature mortgage within the prescribed period, thereby allowing the defendants to mature mortgage within the prescribed period, thereby allowing the defendants to mature mortgage within the prescribed period, thereby allowing the defendants to mature TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.02 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1945-1995 1995 (O&M) -4- - their possession into ownership by prescription. their possession he Court found the plaintiff’s into ownership by prescription. The Court found the plaintiff’s reliance on an ex parte decree and orders regarding alleged acquisition of reliance on an ex parte decree and orders regarding alleged acquisition of reliance on an ex parte decree and orders regarding alleged acquisition of reliance on an ex parte decree and orders regarding alleged acquisition of standing revenue entries and occupancy rights to be wholly inconsistent with long-standing revenue entries and occupancy rights to be wholly inconsistent with long occupancy rights to be wholly inconsistent with long tgagees and sub- incapable of extinguishing the defendants’ subsisting rights as mortgagees and sub incapable of extinguishing the defendants’ subsisting rights as mor incapable of extinguishing the defendants’ subsisting rights as mor further held that the plaintiff’s plea that the defendants were merely tenants. It further held that the plaintiff’s plea that the defendants were merely further held that the plaintiff’s plea that the defendants were merely further held that the plaintiff’s plea that the defendants were merely ees was misconceived, licencees was misconceived, founded, and contrary ill-founded, and contrary founded, and contrary ill to overwhelming to overwhelming to overwhelming plaintiff documentary evidence, as no tenancy or permissive possession under the plaintiff documentary evidence, as no tenancy or permissive possession under the documentary evidence, as no tenancy or permissive possession under the was ever established. C onsequently, the appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s er established. Consequently, the appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s onsequently, the appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s reasoning, found no merit in any of the challenges raised, and dismissed the appeal reasoning, found no merit in any of the challenges raised, and dismissed the appeal reasoning, found no merit in any of the challenges raised, and dismissed the appeal reasoning, found no merit in any of the challenges raised, and dismissed the appeal while endorsing the conclusion that the plaintiff had no subsisting title or right to while endorsing the conclusion that the plaintiff had no subsisting title or right to while endorsing the conclusion that the plaintiff had no subsisting title or right to while endorsing the conclusion that the plaintiff had no subsisting title or right to ossession of the suit land. recover possession of the suit land. 9. , the Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below plaintiff has filed the present regular second appeal, which is contested by the plaintiff has filed the present regular second appeal, which is contested by the plaintiff has filed the present regular second appeal, which is contested by the plaintiff has filed the present regular second appeal, which is contested by the respondent No.1(i). Respondents No.1(ii) and 1(iii) were proceeded against ex respondent No.1(i). Respondents No.1(ii) and 1(iii) were proceeded against ex respondent No.1(i). Respondents No.1(ii) and 1(iii) were proceeded against ex respondent No.1(i). Respondents No.1(ii) and 1(iii) were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 23.09.2025. parte vide order dated 23.09.2025
Legal Reasoning
Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Kishan Full Bench judgment Ram Kishan and Others v. Sheo Ram a and , asserting that usufructuary mortgage without a Others 2008(1) R.C.R (Civil) 334, asserting that usufructuary mortgage without a , asserting that usufructuary mortgage without a Others 2008(1) R.C.R (Civil) 334 fixed period of redemption does not become irredeemable even with the passage of fixed period of redemption does not become irredeemable even with the passage of fixed period of redemption does not become irredeemable even with the passage of fixed period of redemption does not become irredeemable even with the passage of decades, that a mortgagee never becomes owner by prescription in such a situation, decades, that a mortgagee never becomes owner by prescription in such a situation, decades, that a mortgagee never becomes owner by prescription in such a situation, decades, that a mortgagee never becomes owner by prescription in such a situation, the right of redemption subsists regardless of how long the mortgagee and that the right of redemption subsists regardless of how long the mortgagee the right of redemption subsists regardless of how long the mortgagee the right of redemption subsists regardless of how long the mortgagee remains in possession. On this basis, the appellant contended that the plea of the remains in possession. On this basis, the appellant contended that the plea of the remains in possession. On this basis, the appellant contended that the plea of the remains in possession. On this basis, the appellant contended that the plea of the defendants that their long possession matured into ownership, was legally defendants that their long possession matured into ownership, was legally defendants that their long possession matured into ownership, was legally defendants that their long possession matured into ownership, was legally unsustainable. f learned counsel for respondent No.1(i) Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.1(i) f learned counsel for respondent No.1(i) 11. opposed the appeal by On the other hand, the respondent No.1(i) opposed the appeal by On the other hand, the respondent On the other hand, the respondent submitting that the revenue entries for several decades consistently recorded the submitting that the revenue entries for several decades consistently recorded the submitting that the revenue entries for several decades consistently recorded the submitting that the revenue entries for several decades consistently recorded the defendants as Gair Gair Morusi Doen or mortgagees with possession, and that the or mortgagees with possession, and that the plaintiff had never redeemed the alleged oral mortgage nor produced any evidence plaintiff had never redeemed the alleged oral mortgage nor produced any evidence plaintiff had never redeemed the alleged oral mortgage nor produced any evidence plaintiff had never redeemed the alleged oral mortgage nor produced any evidence rebutting the presumption of correctness attached to the jamabandi entries. It was rebutting the presumption of correctness attached to the jamabandi entries. It was rebutting the presumption of correctness attached to the jamabandi entries. It was rebutting the presumption of correctness attached to the jamabandi entries. It was ghts argued for the respondents that the plaintiff’s claim of acquiring occupancy rights argued for the respondents that the plaintiff’s claim of acquiring occupancy ri argued for the respondents that the plaintiff’s claim of acquiring occupancy ri was inconsistent with the revenue record, because the entries in favour of the was inconsistent with the revenue record, because the entries in favour of the was inconsistent with the revenue record, because the entries in favour of the was inconsistent with the revenue record, because the entries in favour of the defendants extended over more than thirty years and the plaintiff had neither defendants extended over more than thirty years and the plaintiff had neither defendants extended over more than thirty years and the plaintiff had neither defendants extended over more than thirty years and the plaintiff had neither challenged those entries nor adduced any cogent evidence to displace them. It was challenged those entries nor adduced any cogent evidence to displace them. It was challenged those entries nor adduced any cogent evidence to displace them. It was challenged those entries nor adduced any cogent evidence to displace them. It was ended that the decree obtained by the plaintiff could not extinguish the further contended that the decree obtained by the plaintiff could not extinguish the ended that the decree obtained by the plaintiff could not extinguish the ended that the decree obtained by the plaintiff could not extinguish the rights of persons who were recorded in possession under the revenue law, and that rights of persons who were recorded in possession under the revenue law, and that rights of persons who were recorded in possession under the revenue law, and that rights of persons who were recorded in possession under the revenue law, and that the plaintiff could not treat them as licencees when the record itself showed them the plaintiff could not treat them as licencees when the record itself showed them the plaintiff could not treat them as licencees when the record itself showed them the plaintiff could not treat them as licencees when the record itself showed them tenants as mortgagees/sub-tenants tenants as mortgagees/sub in continuous, uninterrupted possession. The in continuous, uninterrupted possession. The in continuous, uninterrupted possession. The therefore supported the concurrent findings and asserted that the respondents, therefore supported the concurrent findings and asserted that the therefore supported the concurrent findings and asserted that the therefore supported the concurrent findings and asserted that the plaintiff never established ownership or entitlement to possession. plaintiff never established ownership or entitlement to possession. plaintiff never established ownership or entitlement to possession. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.02 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1945-1995 1995 (O&M) -6- - Findings 12. Having considered the record, the impugne Having considered impugned judgments and decrees d judgments and decrees of ourts below and the submissions of counsel, this Court finds no infirmity in the Courts below and the submissions of counsel, this Court finds no infirmity in ourts below and the submissions of counsel, this Court finds no infirmity in ourts below and the submissions of counsel, this Court finds no infirmity in the concurrent conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish ownership or the the concurrent conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish ownership or the the concurrent conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish ownership or the the concurrent conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish ownership or the le years record the right to recover possession. The jamabandi entries for multiple years record the right to recover possession. The jamabandi entries for multip right to recover possession. The jamabandi entries for multip defendants and their predecessors as Gair M defendants and their predecessors as tenants in Morusi mortgagees/sub-tenants in possession, and these entries carry a presumption of truth which has not been possession, and these entries carry a presumption of truth which has not been possession, and these entries carry a presumption of truth which has not been possession, and these entries carry a presumption of truth which has not been rebutted by the plaintiff. No documentary or oral evidence has been produced to rebutted by the plaintiff. No documentary or oral evidence has been produced to rebutted by the plaintiff. No documentary or oral evidence has been produced to rebutted by the plaintiff. No documentary or oral evidence has been produced to show that any mortgage was ever redeemed, or that the defendants were at any show that any mortgage was ever redeemed, or that the defendants were at any show that any mortgage was ever redeemed, or that the defendants were at any show that any mortgage was ever redeemed, or that the defendants were at any stage licencees under the plaintiff. On the contrary, the revenue entries e licencees under the plaintiff. On the contrary, the revenue entries the contrary, the revenue entries demonstrate uninterrupted possession of the defendants for more than thirty years, demonstrate uninterrupted possession of the defendants for more than thirty years, demonstrate uninterrupted possession of the defendants for more than thirty years, demonstrate uninterrupted possession of the defendants for more than thirty years, as neither explained nor challenged. The decree relied upon by which the plaintiff has neither explained nor challenged. The decree relied upon by as neither explained nor challenged. The decree relied upon by which the plaintiff h the plaintiff does not override or negate these entries, particularly as the defendants the plaintiff does not override or negate these entries, particularly as the defendants the plaintiff does not override or negate these entries, particularly as the defendants the plaintiff does not override or negate these entries, particularly as the defendants were not shown to have been parties to the proceedings culminating in that decree. were not shown to have been parties to the proceedings culminating in that decree. were not shown to have been parties to the proceedings culminating in that decree. were not shown to have been parties to the proceedings culminating in that decree. ial court, as affirmed by the lower appellate court, are thus The findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the lower appellate court, are thus ial court, as affirmed by the lower appellate court, are thus The findings of the tr based on proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be termed perverse or based on proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be termed perverse or based on proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be termed perverse or based on proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be termed perverse or contrary to law. contrary to law. 13. The judgment in Ram Kishan’s case (supra) The judgment in , relied upon by the ’s case (supra), relied upon by the e facts of the present case. That judgment deals appellant, is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. That judgment deals e facts of the present case. That judgment deals appellant, is distinguishable on th with the concept that usufructuary mortgage without a fixed period of redemption with the concept that usufructuary mortgage without a fixed period of redemption with the concept that usufructuary mortgage without a fixed period of redemption with the concept that usufructuary mortgage without a fixed period of redemption does not become irredeemable by mere passage of time and that the mortgagee does not become irredeemable by mere passage of time and that the mortgagee does not become irredeemable by mere passage of time and that the mortgagee does not become irredeemable by mere passage of time and that the mortgagee e foundation of that judgment does not become owner by prescription. However, the foundation of that judgment does not become owner by prescription. However, th does not become owner by prescription. However, th is the admitted existence of a valid usufructuary mortgage and the question of is the admitted existence of a valid usufructuary mortgage and the question of is the admitted existence of a valid usufructuary mortgage and the question of is the admitted existence of a valid usufructuary mortgage and the question of limitation for redemption. In the present matter, the essential controversy is not the limitation for redemption. In the present matter, the essential controversy is not the limitation for redemption. In the present matter, the essential controversy is not the limitation for redemption. In the present matter, the essential controversy is not the mortgage, but whether enforceability of the right of redemption under a subsisting mortgage, but whether enforceability of the right of redemption under a subsisting enforceability of the right of redemption under a subsisting TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.02 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1945-1995 1995 (O&M) -7- - the plaintiff has proved ownership at all, and whether the revenue entries showing the plaintiff has proved ownership at all, and whether the revenue entries showing the plaintiff has proved ownership at all, and whether the revenue entries showing the plaintiff has proved ownership at all, and whether the revenue entries showing with possession for more than thirty the defendants as Gair Morusi mortgagees with possession for more than thirty with possession for more than thirty the defendants as s not proved years stand displaced by any legal or factual material. The plaintiff has not proved years stand displaced by any legal or factual material. The plaintiff ha years stand displaced by any legal or factual material. The plaintiff ha the existence or terms of any mortgage so as to bring the case within the ratio of the existence or terms of any mortgage so as to bring the case within the ratio of the existence or terms of any mortgage so as to bring the case within the ratio of the existence or terms of any mortgage so as to bring the case within the ratio of the Full Bench. More importantly, the plaintiff has not redeemed any mortgage, the Full Bench. More importantly, the plaintiff has not redeemed any mortgage, the Full Bench. More importantly, the plaintiff has not redeemed any mortgage, the Full Bench. More importantly, the plaintiff has not redeemed any mortgage, has not challenged the longstanding revenue entries, and has relied instead on has not challenged the longstanding revenue entries, and has relied instead on has not challenged the longstanding revenue entries, and has relied instead on has not challenged the longstanding revenue entries, and has relied instead on ders which, on their face, do not unsettle the factual position consistently orders which, on their face, do not unsettle the factual position consistently ders which, on their face, do not unsettle the factual position consistently ders which, on their face, do not unsettle the factual position consistently reflected in the jamabandis. Therefore, the principles laid down in Ram Kishan reflected in the jamabandis. Therefore, the principles laid down in reflected in the jamabandis. Therefore, the principles laid down in Ram Kishan’s do not assist the appellant and cannot be applied to alter the factual case (supra) do not assist the appellant and cannot be applied to alter the factual do not assist the appellant and cannot be applied to alter the factual do not assist the appellant and cannot be applied to alter the factual y conclusions reached by the courts below. and evidentiary conclusions reached by the courts below. y conclusions reached by the courts below. 14. Consequently, this Court concurs with the view taken by the C Consequently, this Court conc ourts urs with the view taken by the Courts below that the plaintiff has not discharged the burden of proving title or entitlement below that the plaintiff has not discharged the burden of proving title or entitlement below that the plaintiff has not discharged the burden of proving title or entitlement below that the plaintiff has not discharged the burden of proving title or entitlement to possession, and the present appeal is dismissed being to possession, and the dismissed being devoid of merit. 15.
Arguments
Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant 10. ourts below The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Courts below The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the failed to appreciate that the plaintiff had acquired occupancy rights under Section 8 failed to appreciate that the plaintiff had acquired occupancy rights under Section 8 failed to appreciate that the plaintiff had acquired occupancy rights under Section 8 failed to appreciate that the plaintiff had acquired occupancy rights under Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and thereby became owner of the suit land, and Tenancy Act, 1887 and thereby became owner of the suit land, and and thereby became owner of the suit land, and that this position stood recognised by the order of the Assistant Collector and the that this position stood recognised by the order of the Assistant Collector and the that this position stood recognised by the order of the Assistant Collector and the that this position stood recognised by the order of the Assistant Collector and the decree relied upon by the plaintiff. It was urged that once such occupancy rights decree relied upon by the plaintiff. It was urged that once such occupancy rights decree relied upon by the plaintiff. It was urged that once such occupancy rights decree relied upon by the plaintiff. It was urged that once such occupancy rights r revenue entries could not prevail and the defendants were declared, the earlier revenue entries could not prevail and the defendants r revenue entries could not prevail and the defendants were declared, the earlie could not claim to have acquired ownership by adverse possession or prescription. could not claim to have acquired ownership by adverse possession or prescription. could not claim to have acquired ownership by adverse possession or prescription. could not claim to have acquired ownership by adverse possession or prescription. was permissive, The appellant further submitted that the possession of defendants was permissive, The appellant further submitted that the possession The appellant further submitted that the possession as licencees under the plaintiff, and after termination of this licence the plaintiff as licencees under the plaintiff, and after termination of this licence the plaintiff as licencees under the plaintiff, and after termination of this licence the plaintiff as licencees under the plaintiff, and after termination of this licence the plaintiff TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.02 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1945-1995 1995 (O&M) -5- - was entitled to recover possession. Reliance was placed by the appellant upon the was entitled to recover possession. Reliance was placed by the appellant upon the was entitled to recover possession. Reliance was placed by the appellant upon the was entitled to recover possession. Reliance was placed by the appellant upon the
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 2025 December 01, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking speaking : Speaking : Yes/No. : Yes/No. Whether reportable Whether reportable (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.02 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document