Versus & Ors. v. COCP-885-2010 SANSAR DEVI @ SANSAR BALA SANSAR DEVI & Ors.

Judgment

1. RSA-2115-2006 (O&M) SANSAR DEVI AND ORS. SANSAR DEVI AND ORS. …. Appellants MAHABIR DASS MAHABIR DASS …. Respondent Versus

2. RSA-973-2010 (O&M) SANSAR DEVI AND ORS. SANSAR DEVI AND ORS. …. Appellants MAHABIR DASS MAHABIR DASS …. Respondent Versus

3. COCP-885-2010 SANSAR DEVI @ SANSAR BALA AND ORS. SANSAR DEVI AND ORS. …. Petitioners MAHABIR DASS MAHABIR DASS …. Respondent Versus

4. CRM-M-32841-2010 MAHANT MAHABIR DASS MAHABIR DASS AND ORS. …. Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA …. Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. RAMESH KUMARI HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present : Mr. Amit Jain, S r Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate with for the appellant(s) Ms. Nikita Sharma, Advocate for the appellant(s) Ms. Nikita Sharma, Advocate 2010 and in RSA-2115-2006 and RSA-973-2010 for the petitioner in COCP for the petitioner in COCP-885-2010 in CRM-M-32840-2010. in CRM 2010 and for respondent No.2 Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate (through V.C.) with Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate (through V.C.) with Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate (through V.C.) with Mr. Nissim Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Nissim Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Nissim Aggarwal, Advocate and RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), M-32841-2010 -2- Mr. A.V.S. Parmar, Advocate Mr. A.V.S. Parmar, Advocate for the respondent(s) in RSA-2115 for the respondent(s) in 2115-2006 and RSA-973-2010. Mr. Nipun Vashist, Advocate Mr. Nipun Vashist, Advocate for petitioner No.1 in CRM for petitioner No.1 in CRM-M-32841 2010. for respondent in COCP-885-2010. for respondent in COCP 32841-2010 and Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2 in CRM-M-32841 for respondent No.2 in 32841-2010. **** RAMESH KUMARI, J. (oral) RAMESH KUMARI

1. This order shall dispose of the aforementioned regular second appeals bearing This order shall dispose of the aforementioned regular second appeals bearing This order shall dispose of the aforementioned regular second appeals bearing This order shall dispose of the aforementioned regular second appeals bearing No. RSA-2115 as well as petitions bearing No. 2115-2006 and RSA-973-2010 as well as petitions bearing No. as well as petitions bearing No. COCP-885-2010 and CRM 2010 and CRM-M-32841-2010.

2. RSA-2115-2006 ha 2006 had been filed by the appellants/successors interest of been filed by the appellants/successors-in-interest of against the impugned judgment and decree dated original plaintiff-Rumal Kaur against the impugned judgment and decree dated against the impugned judgment and decree dated original plaintiff

22.04.2006 whereby, appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against dismissal 22.04.2006 whereby, appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against dismissal 22.04.2006 whereby, appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against dismissal 22.04.2006 whereby, appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against dismissal of civil suit No.1080 of l suit No.1080 of 30.10.1992 instituted on 16.08.1985 had been instituted on 16.08.1985, had been dismissed.

3. Civil suit No.1080/1985 was filed for declaration to the effect Civil suit No.1080/ that the change was filed for declaration to the effect that the change 4), Rect. of cultivation in respect of the land bearing Rect. No.6 killa No.23 (4-4), Rect. of cultivation in respect of the land bearing Rect. No.6 killa No.23 (4 of cultivation in respect of the land bearing Rect. No.6 killa No.23 (4 No.8 killa Nos. 21 (4-8), 22 (5-18), Rect. No.9 killa Nos. No.8 killa Nos. 21 (4 8), total 18), Rect. No.9 killa Nos. 3(4-17), 9(8-8), total area 27 kanal 7 marla, situated in village Kharkhari Bhiwan, area 27 kanal 7 marla 1982 , situated in village Kharkhari Bhiwan, since Kharif 1982 in the name of the defendant is illegal, invalid, in the name of the defendant is illegal without jurisdiction and nullity , without jurisdiction and nullity in the eyes of law and that the plaintiff was still in continuous possession in the eyes of law and as a was still in continuous possession as a tenant, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the tenant, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the tenant, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the tenant, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent (hereinafter referred to as (hereinafter referred to as defendant from interfering into the defendant) from interfering into the RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), M-32841-2010 -3- peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the above peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the above numbered suit property and therefrom. from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff therefrom. from forcibly dispossessing

4. The brief facts of brief facts of civil suit No.1080/1985 filed by Rumal Kaur filed by Rumal Kaur, plaintiff are situated the suit land including other land measuring 121 kanal 14 marla situated the suit land including other land measuring 121 that, the suit land including other land measuring 121 , in cultivating possession of Jai Singh, in village Kharkhari Bhiwan had been in cultivating possession of Jai Singh in village Kharkhari Bhiwan . as tenant since 1966 at the annual rent of an amount of Rs.1,000/-. as tenant since 1966 at the annual rent of an amount of Rs.1,000/ her husband as tenant since 1966 at the annual rent of an amount of Rs.1,000/ cultivating possession as tenant. The After his death, plaintiff came in cultivating possession as tenant. The cultivating possession as tenant. The After his death, defendant receiv

1983. Thereafter, the defendant in collusion received rent till Rabi 1983. Thereafter, the defendant in collusion 1983. Thereafter, the defendant in collusion with the revenue officials, illegally got changed with the revenue officials entries of got changed Khasra Girdawari entries of the suit land in his name from Kharif 1983 without the suit land in his name from any notice to 1983 without issuance of any notice to her. She had never been ejected from the suit property. She ejected from the suit property. She had never surrendered the possession in favour of the defendant. The defendant in surrendered the possession in favour of the defendant. The defendant in surrendered the possession in favour of the defendant. The defendant in surrendered the possession in favour of the defendant. The defendant in who were inimical collusion with the village Patwari and other persons, who were inimical collusion with the village Patwari and other collusion with the village Patwari and other towards her, obtained her thumb impressions on blank papers. After towards her, obtained her thumb impression coming to on blank papers. After coming to , she filed a complaint to the Police authorities know of fraud and forgery, she filed a complaint to the Police authorities , she filed a complaint to the Police authorities know of fraud and forgery against village Patwari and the defendant. She also moved application for against village Patwari and the defendant. She also moved application for against village Patwari and the defendant. She also moved application for against village Patwari and the defendant. She also moved application for correction of Khasra Girdawari to Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Rewari. Khasra Girdawari to Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Rewari. to Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Rewari. However, during the pendency of said application However, during the pe for the year application, jamabandi for the year was prepared on the basis of false and wrong revenue entries in the 1983-84 was prepared on the basis of false and wrong revenue entries in the was prepared on the basis of false and wrong revenue entries in the was prepared on the basis of false and wrong revenue entries in the Khasra Girdawari. Her application for correction of Khasra Girdawari . Her application for correction of Khasra Girdawari had been dismissed vide order dated dismissed vide order dated 05.08.1985 Ex. DA . The defendant illegally Ex. DA. The defendant illegally intends to dispossess her from the suit property. She requested him to intends to dispossess refrain from the suit property. She requested him to refrain from doing so bu but it was to no avail which necessitated no avail which necessitated the filing of the suit. RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), M-32841-2010 -4-

5. The respondent, defendant in written statement admitted initial The respondent, possession of defendant in written statement admitted initial possession of but pleaded that the plaintiff over the suit property through her sub-lettees but pleaded that the plaintiff over the suit property through her sub the plaintiff over the suit property through her sub surrendered the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff and her sub-lettees surrendered the possession of the suit land to the surrendered the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff and her sub defendant on 22.10.1981 out of her free will and understanding. Rapat defendant on 22.10.1981 out of her free will and understanding. Rapat defendant on 22.10.1981 out of her free will and understanding. Rapat defendant on 22.10.1981 out of her free will and understanding. Rapat Rojnamchas No .66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 No.66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 .66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 respectively, dated 22.10.1981 were entered by the Patwari which were thumb respectively, dated 22.10.1981 were entered by the Patwari which were thumb respectively, dated 22.10.1981 were entered by the Patwari which were thumb respectively, dated 22.10.1981 were entered by the Patwari which were thumb marked by her and her sub-lettees. From the crop of marked by her and her sub 1981, the defendant rom the crop of Kharif 1981, the defendant is in cultivating possession of the suit land. The pla is in cultivating rent for possession of the suit land. The plaintiff had not paid rent for Kharif 1982 and Rabi 1983 and Rabi 1983. He had never issued any r eceipt. The alleged issued any receipt. The alleged Dayal and Ram Swarup are helping receipts are forged by plaintiff. Dalip, Jai Dayal and Ram Swarup are helping Dayal and Ram Swarup are helping receipts are forged by Bhind, and they forcibly abducted him and brought him to village Bhind, and they forcibly abducted him and brought him to the plaintiff and they forcibly abducted him and brought him to where brother of aforesaid persons was posted as a Jailor where brother his signatures posted as a Jailor and his signatures obtained on some blank papers forcibly under threat and coercion. The were obtained on some blank papers forcibly under threat and coercion. The obtained on some blank papers forcibly under threat and coercion. The obtained on some blank papers forcibly under threat and coercion. The defendant pleaded for dismissal of the suit. defendant pleaded for dismissal of the suit.

6. the averments of the plaint while The plaintiff filed replication, reiterating all the averments of the plaint while the averments of the plaint while The plaintiff filed replication, reiterating all denying averments of written statement. denying averments of written statement.

7. were framed by the learned trial Following issues in civil suit No.1080/1985 were framed by the learned trial were framed by the learned trial Following issues Court:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is in cultivating possession as a tenant Whether the plaintiff is in cultivating possession as a tenant Whether the plaintiff is in cultivating possession as a tenant

only cash under the defendant on the payment of Rs.1000/- only cash under the defendant on the p rent for the land in question on the grounds as alleged, if so rent for the land in question on the grounds as alleged, if so rent for the land in question on the grounds as alleged, if so its effect? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), M-32841-2010 -5-

3. Relief.

9. During the pendency of the suit, endency of the suit, Rumal Kaur, plaintiff - Rumal Kaur, plaintiff died and her successors- interest were brought on record as plaintiffs. in-interest were brought on record as plaintiffs. The evidence was was led by the parties to the suit dismissed led by the parties to the suit. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit wherein issue No.1 was decided against the plaintiff and in favou the suit wherein r of against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant by holding that the Rumal Kaur, plaintiff had surrendered Rumal Kaur, plaintiff had surrendered possession over the suit property in favour of the defendant possession over the suit prop Rapat erty in favour of the defendant vide Rapat Roznamchas No. 66, 67 and 69 No. 66, 67 and 69 dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/1, Ex DW3/2 and dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/1, Ex. DW3/2 and Ex.DW3/3.

10. During the pendency of the first appeal, During the pendency of the first appeal, Ghan Shyam Ghan Shyam Dass died and Mahabir Dass moved an application for impleading him as defendant. The said Dass moved an application for impleading him as defendant. The said Dass moved an application for impleading him as defendant. The said Dass moved an application for impleading him as defendant. The said application was allowed vide order dated 08.04.2005 and Mahab application was allowed vide order dated 08.04.2005 and Mahabir Dass was ordered to be impleaded as defendant in place of Ghan Shyam Dass. However, ordered to be impleaded as defendant in place of Ghan Shyam Dass. However, ordered to be impleaded as defendant in place of Ghan Shyam Dass. However, ordered to be impleaded as defendant in place of Ghan Shyam Dass. However, name of Ghan Shyam Dass was mentioned as defendant in due to inadvertence, name of Ghan Shyam Dass was mentioned as defendant in name of Ghan Shyam Dass was mentioned as defendant in due to inadverten the head note of the impugned judgment and decree the head note of , judgment and decree dated 22.04.2006, rendered by learned First Appellate Court. rendered by learned First Appellate Court. appeal and upheld the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the first appeal and upheld the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the 11. The learned First Appellate Court dismissed the findings of learned trial Court gs of learned trial Court by holding that the receipt by holding that the receipts Ex. PW-9/B dated

22.03.1982 and regarding payment of rent to the 2.03.1982 and Ex. PW-9/E dated 7.7.1983 regarding payment of rent to the regarding payment of rent to the defendant by Rumal Kaur, plaintiff Rumal Kaur, plaintiff for the crop 1982 for the crop Kharif 1981 and Rabi 1982 and kharif 1982 1983 respectively, are not proved whereas the 1982 and Rabi 1983 respectively, are not proved whereas the 1983 respectively, are not proved whereas the plaintiff was not in cultivating possession since she delivered the possession in plaintiff was not in cultivating possession since she delivered the possession in plaintiff was not in cultivating possession since she delivered the possession in plaintiff was not in cultivating possession since she delivered the possession in favor of the defendant vide Rapat Roznamchas favor of the defendant vide Exs. DW3/1 Nos. 66,67 and 69 Exs. DW3/1 dated 22.10.1981. to DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981. RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), M-32841-2010 -6-

12. The RSA-2115 against impugned judgment and decree 2115-2006, was admitted against impugned judgment and decree against impugned judgment and decree dated 22.04.2006 on the following substantial questions of law: dated 22.04.2006 substantial questions of law:- Whether a Receipt duly proved by examining its scribe and “(a) Whether a Receipt duly proved by examining its scribe and Whether a Receipt duly proved by examining its scribe and “(a) Hand-writing Expert can be disbelieved merely on the basis writing Expert can be disbelieved merely on the basis person issuing the same? of denial of the person issuing the same? (b) Whether it was safe to place unstinted reliance upon (b) Rapat Whether it was safe to place unstinted reliance upon Rapat Roznamchas Ex. DW-3/1 to Ex. DW - 3/1 to Ex. DW-3/3 bearing thumb- impressions of a rustic lady alleged to have of a rustic lady alleged to have been obtained tation? by deceit and mis-representation? (c) Whether the Receipt Ex. DW (c) 9/E dated 7.7.1983 issued by x. DW-9/E dated 7.7.1983 issued by Ghan Shyam Dass landlord in token of receipt of rent of Ghan Shyam Dass landlord in token of receipt of rent of Ghan Shyam Dass landlord in token of receipt of rent of Kharif 1982 and Rabi, 1983 falsifies the claim of the , 1983 falsifies the claim of the respondent that Rumal Kaur had surrendered possession of respondent that Rumal Kaur had surrendered possession of respondent that Rumal Kaur had surrendered possession of the land in dispute on 22.10.1981? the land in dispute on 22.10.1981? (d) Whether the findings of facts recorded (d) by the Ld. Courts dings of facts recorded by the Ld. Courts below making random observations and on wrong random observations and on wrong random observations and on wrong appreciation of the material evidence on record, enjoy the appreciation of the material evidence on record, enjoy the appreciation of the material evidence on record, enjoy the ity or concurrent findings so as to be immune to sanctity or concurrent findings so as to be immune to ity or concurrent findings so as to be immune to challenge and interference in the second appeal?” challenge and interference in the second appeal?

13. At the time of admission of RSA No.2115 At the time of admission of RSA No.2115 of 2006 , on 27.09.2007, it was also of 2006, on 27.09.2007, it was also ordered that “In the meantime, t In the meantime, the parties shall maintain with regard he parties shall maintain status quo with regard to possession over suit land.” to possession over suit land

14. RSA No.973 of RSA No.973 of 2010 arises out of dismissal of appeal filed by the 2010 arises out of dismissal of appeal filed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.09.2009 of appellants/plaintiffs vide impugned judgment and decree dated 18.09.2009 of impugned judgment and decree dated 18.09.2009 of appellants/plaintiffs RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), M-32841-2010 -7- the First Appellate Court which had been filed against dismissal of the the First Appellate Court filed against dismissal of the civil suit No. 17 of 1987/2007. suit No. 17 of 1987/2007

15. The civil suit No.17 of 1987 for declaration and The civil suit No. for declaration and permanent injunction as consequential relief had been filed that the plaintiff and consequential relief her husband t the plaintiff and Jai Singh, her husband Khewat were in continuous cultivating possession of land comprising of Khewat were in continuous cultivating possession of land comprising of were in continuous cultivating possession of land comprising of No.23, Khatuni hatuni No.23, Rect No.9 Kila No.24(3 0), Rect. No.13 Kila No.24(3-16), 25(3-0), Rect. No.13 Killa No.4(5-10), 10),5/1(6-16), Rect. No.6 Killa No.23 (4 Rect. No.1 Killa Rect. No.6 Killa No.23 (4-4), Rect. No.1 Killa No.21(4-8), Killa No.22(5 8), Killa No.22(5-18), Rect. No.9 Killa No. 0) total 18), Rect. No.9 Killa No.3 (4-17), 9 (8-0) total killas 9 and measuring 46 and measuring 46 kanal and 9 marla t. No.9 and Khatuni No.25 Rect. No.9 Killa No.7(3-9), 8(8 9), 8(8-2), 10(8-0), 11(8-0), 12(8 0), 0), 12(8-0), 13(8-0), 14(7-0), 17(5-0), 18(8-0), 19(8-0), 20(8 0), 20(8-0), Rect. No.10, Killa No.3(7 0) total 0), Rect. No.10, Killa No.3(7-18), 7(8-0), 4(8-0) total killas 14 and measuring 103 14 and measuring 103 kanal 9 marla as per agreement dated marla as per agreement dated

24.01.1979, in the reven in the revenue record, the plaintiffs are mentioned as Mujara Gair ue record, the plaintiffs are mentioned as Mujara Gair (tenant at will). The plaintiff prayed that she be declared as owner in Marusi (tenant at will). The plaintiff prayed that she be declared as owner in (tenant at will). The plaintiff prayed that she be declared as owner in (tenant at will). The plaintiff prayed that she be declared as owner in possession of suit property measuring 103 kanal possession of suit property measuring 103 out of total land kanal 9 marla out of total land situated in the revenue estate of village measuring 149 kanal 18 marla situated in the revenue estate of village situated in the revenue estate of village measuring 149 Kharkhari Bhiwan, Tehsil and District Rewari. The plaintiff also prayed that Kharkhari Bhiwan, Tehsil and District Rewari. The plaintiff also prayed that Kharkhari Bhiwan, Tehsil and District Rewari. The plaintiff also prayed that Kharkhari Bhiwan, Tehsil and District Rewari. The plaintiff also prayed that grant of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in any manner in grant of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in any manner in grant of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in any manner in grant of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in any manner in the suit property. the suit property

16. The facts of the civil suit No.1 The facts of the civil suit No.17 dated 18.11.1987 filed Rumal Kaur, 7 dated 18.11.1987 filed by Rumal Kaur, plaintiff are that earlier Jai Singh that earlier Jai Singh; her husband was in continuous cultivating her husband was in continuous cultivating possession of the suit property and after his death, she was in cultivating possession of the suit property and after his death, she was in cultivating possession of the suit property and after his death, she was in cultivating possession of the suit property and after his death, she was in cultivating jara Gair possession. Their names entered in the revenue record as ‘Mujara Gair possession. Their names entered in the revenue record as ‘ possession. Their names entered in the revenue record as ‘ RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), M-32841-2010 -8- (tenant at will) of the suit land but their possession is sufficiently long Marusi’ (tenant at will) of the suit land but their possession is sufficiently long (tenant at will) of the suit land but their possession is sufficiently long (tenant at will) of the suit land but their possession is sufficiently long and they have become owner in possession because and they have become owner in possession because; (a) There was was an oral agreement between defendant an oral agreement between defendant that the plaintiff can continue to cultivate the land and pay the rent and she would not be continue to cultivate the land and pay the rent and she would not be continue to cultivate the land and pay the rent and she would not be continue to cultivate the land and pay the rent and she would not be ejected from the tenancy. ejected from the tenancy. (b) land as She had incurred heavy expenditure in the improvement of suit land as She had incurred heavy expenditure in the improvement of She had incurred heavy expenditure in the improvement of they had constructed a bore and installed a tubewell and made the land they had constructed a bore and installed a tubewell and made the land they had constructed a bore and installed a tubewell and made the land they had constructed a bore and installed a tubewell and made the land permanently Chahi, their tenancy is recorded in writing dat permanently d , their tenancy is recorded in writing dated

1.1979. The electric connection was also obtained by the plaintiff 24.01.1979. The electric connection was also obtained by the plaintiff 1.1979. The electric connection was also obtained by the plaintiff 1.1979. The electric connection was also obtained by the plaintiff with her own her own expenses. (c) There was huge chunk of agricultural land with the defendants but had There was huge chunk of agricultural land with the defendants but had There was huge chunk of agricultural land with the defendants but had There was huge chunk of agricultural land with the defendants but had husband of the plaintiff approached no means to cultivate and Jai Singh, husband of the plaintiff approached husband of the plaintiff approached no means to cultivate and Jai Singh, the defendants to cultivate the land and the possession was delivered to the defendants to cultivate the land and the possession was delivered to the defendants to cultivate the land and the possession was delivered to the defendants to cultivate the land and the possession was delivered to him accordingly. him accordingly. (d) Defendants themselves admitted ants themselves admitted that the plaintiff has the right to the plaintiff has the right to rom claiming occupy the land, therefore, the defendants were estopped from claiming occupy the land, therefore, the defendants were estopped f occupy the land, therefore, the defendants were estopped f any right, title or interest over the suit land. any right, title or interest over the suit land. any right, title or interest over the suit land. (e) In view of the oral agreement between the parties, the ejectment order In view of the oral agreement between the parties, the ejectment order In view of the oral agreement between the parties, the ejectment order In view of the oral agreement between the parties, the ejectment order , against the plaintiff by the Court of Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, against the plaintiff by the Court of Assi against the plaintiff by the Court of Assi Rewari, and the parties are bound by the oral agreement. It is wrong and the parties are bound by the oral agreement. It and the parties are bound by the oral agreement. It was further pleaded that as per the provisions of the Punjab Occupancy was further pleaded that as per the provisions of the Punjab Occupancy was further pleaded that as per the provisions of the Punjab Occupancy was further pleaded that as per the provisions of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952, (for short-the Act, the Act, Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952, Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952, 1952), the plaintiff the plaintiff is required to be recorded as occupancy tenants over required to be recorded as occupancy tenants over the suit land and entitled to be declared as owner in possession of suit the suit land and entitled to be declared as owner in possession of suit the suit land and entitled to be declared as owner in possession of suit the suit land and entitled to be declared as owner in possession of suit RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), M-32841-2010 -9- land. The plaintiff approached the defendants to get her name recorded land. The plaintiff approached the defendants to get her name recorded land. The plaintiff approached the defendants to get her name recorded land. The plaintiff approached the defendants to get her name recorded in the revenue record as owner in possession in the revenue record but they as owner in possession initially, but they matter on one pretext or the other and on 13.11.1987, postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and on 13.11.1987, matter on one pretext or the other and on 13.11.1987, postponed the they refused to accede her request which necessitated they refused to accede the filing of the request which necessitated the filing of the suit.

17. in written statement contested the suit by raising preliminary The defendants in written statement contested the suit by raising preliminary in written statement contested the suit by raising preliminary The defendants the suit is barred under Order II Rule objection of its maintainability and that the suit is barred under Order II Rule the suit is barred under Order II Rule objection of its maintainability and that 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short of Code of Civil Procedure (for short-CPC locus standi CPC), plaintiff had no locus standi and cause of action to file the suit and that the suit was liable to be stayed and cause of action to file the suit and that the suit was liable to be stayed and cause of action to file the suit and that the suit was liable to be stayed and cause of action to file the suit and that the suit was liable to be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC as the previous suits titles as under Section 10 of the CPC r vs. as the previous suits titles as Rumal Kaur vs. Ghanshyam Dass, and Rumal Kaur vs. Dharam Singh, were based on similar Ghanshyam Dass, and Rumal Kaur vs. Dharam Singh, were based on similar Ghanshyam Dass, and Rumal Kaur vs. Dharam Singh, were based on similar Ghanshyam Dass, and Rumal Kaur vs. Dharam Singh, were based on similar facts. It was also averred that the Murti Thakurji Virajman Aasthal Baba facts. It was also averred that the Murti Thakurji Virajman Aasthal Baba facts. It was also averred that the Murti Thakurji Virajman Aasthal Baba facts. It was also averred that the Murti Thakurji Virajman Aasthal Baba Mohan Dass, Bharawas (hereinafter referred to as ‘Murti Thakurji’) had not Mohan Dass, Bharawas (hereinafter referred to as ‘Murti Thakurji’) had not Mohan Dass, Bharawas (hereinafter referred to as ‘Murti Thakurji’) had not Mohan Dass, Bharawas (hereinafter referred to as ‘Murti Thakurji’) had not been arrayed and the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties (later been arrayed and the s joinder of necessary parties (later on was impleaded as defendant No.2). On merits, the defendants Murti Thakurji was impleaded as defendant No.2). On merits, the defendants was impleaded as defendant No.2). On merits, the defendants Murti Thakurji pleaded that plaintiff had not been in possession after pleaded that plaintiff as the in possession after Kharif 1981 as the . Jai possession had already been transferred in the name of the Murti Thakurji. Jai possession had already been transferred in the name of the possession had already been transferred in the name of the thereafter, Singh and Rumal Kaur cultivated the suit property for few years thereafter, Singh and Rumal Kaur cultivated the suit property for few years Singh and Rumal Kaur cultivated the suit property for few years Nos.66, they surrendered the possession and in this regard Rapat Roznamchas Nos.66, they surrendered the possession and in this regard they surrendered the possession and in this regard 67 and 69 were recorded in favour of Murti Thakurji 67 and 69 were r 1982, Murti Thakurji. However, in Rabi 1982, girdawari the plaintiff in connivance with revenue officials obtained Khasra girdawari the plaintiff in connivance with revenue official the plaintiff in connivance with revenue official in her favour of land measuring 103 kanal in her favour of land measuring 103 without giving them kanal 7 marla without giving them notice. No agreement dated 24. No agreement dated 24.01.1979 was executed between the parties. 1.1979 was executed between the parties. The defendants never permitted the plaintiff to obtain The defendant electric connection on never permitted the plaintiff to obtain electric connection on COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -10- her name. Property is owned by name. Property is owned by Murti Thakurji was not having Murti Thakurji and Mahant was not having any right to claim admission on behalf of Murti Thakurji any right to claim admission on behalf of . Mahant was not Murti Thakurji. Mahant was not competent to enter into compromise on behalf of competent to enter into compromise n civil suit on behalf of Murti Thakurji. In civil suit No.1080 filed on 1 filed on 12.08.1985, the plaintiff herself claimed to be i he plaintiff herself claimed to be Gair Marusi tenant and never claimed occupancy rights. tenant and never claimed occupancy rights.

18. The replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the pleadings and The replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the pleadings and was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the pleadings and controverting the averments of written statements. controverting the averments of written statements. controverting the averments of written statements. Rumal Kaur died During the pendency of civil suit No.17 of 1987, plaintiff, Rumal Kaur died During the pendency of civil suit No.17 of 1987 19. During the pendency of civil suit No.17 of 1987 interest were brought on record. and her legal heirs/successors-in-interest were brought on record. and her legal heirs/successors

20. The learned trial Court framed following issues in civil suit No.17 of 1987 The learned trial Court framed following iss ues in civil suit No.17 of 1987:- Whether the plaintiffs have become owners and in (1) Whether the plaintiffs have become owners and in Whether the plaintiffs have become owners and in (1) possession of the suit land as alleged ? OPP possession of the suit land as alleged ? OPP (2) Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to (2) try the Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPP Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? (3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? (3) OPD Whether the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC? (4) Whether the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC? Whether the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC? (4) OPD Whether the plaintiffs are stopped from filing the present (5) Whether the plaintiffs are stopped from filing the present Whether the plaintiffs are stopped from filing the present (5) suit by their own act and conduct ? OPD suit by their own act and conduct ? OP (6) Whether the Murti Thakurji (6) Murti Thakurji is a necessary party? OPD Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD (7) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD (7) (8) Relief. (8) Evidence was led by the parties to the suit. 21. Evidence was led by the parties to the suit.

22. Learned trial Court issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 against the Learned trial Court rendered findings on issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 against the issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 against the plaintiffs by holding that the by holding that the Rumal Kaur, plaintiff had herself surrendered the Rumal Kaur, plaintiff had herself surrendered the COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -11- In possession over the suit land and she cannot be held to be in possession. In possession over the suit land and she cannot be held possession over the suit land and she cannot be held order to claim ownership being occupancy tenant, the plaintiff w order to claim ownership as required to being occupancy tenant, the plaintiff was required to fulfill the criteria as mentioned in Section 5 of Pun fulfill the criteria as mentioned in Section 5 of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (for (for short-the Act, 1887) the Act, 1887) and Section 3 of the Act, 1952 which the plaintiff failed , 1952 which the plaintiff failed The civil suit was to prove and that suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC. The civil suit was to prove and that suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC to prove and that suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC thereby dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.02.2007. thereby dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.02.2007. thereby dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.02.2007.

23. Findings of the learned trial Court upheld by the learned First Appellate Findings of the learned trial Court were upheld by the learned First Appellate upheld by the learned First Appellate vide impugned judgment dated 18.09.2009. vide impugned judgment dated 18.09.2009 Court vide impugned judgment dated 18.09.2009

24. The regular second appeal No.973 of against impugned judgment dated regular second appeal No.973 of 2010, against impugned judgment dated against impugned judgment dated

18.09.2009 was admitted on the was admitted on the following substantial questions of law following substantial questions of law :- on possession of the land in dispute could “(i) Whether finding on possession of the land in dispute could on possession of the land in dispute could “(i) be returned against the appellants on the basis of Reports be returned against the appellants on the basis of Reports be returned against the appellants on the basis of Reports Ex.DW-3/1, Ex.DW-3/2 and Ex 3/3 which had also 3/2 and Ex.DW-3/3 which had also been relied upon against them in the earlier litigation and been relied upon against them in the earlier litigation and been relied upon against them in the earlier litigation and judice in RSA No.2115 the authenticity whereof being sub-judice in RSA No.2115 the authenticity whereof being sub of 2006 having been admitted and still pending? of 2006 having been admitted and still pending? Whether the findings recorded by the Ld. Courts below (ii) Whether the findings recorded by the Ld. Courts below Whether the findings recorded by the Ld. Courts below (ii) to unimpeachable and authentic documentary contrary to unimpeachable and authentic documentary to unimpeachable and authentic documentary evidence on record enjoy the sanctity of concurrent findings evidence on record enjoy the sanctity of concurrent findings evidence on record enjoy the sanctity of concurrent findings so as to be immune to challenge and interference in the so as to be immune to challenge and interference in the so as to be immune to challenge and interference in the second appeal ?” COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -12-

25. At the time of admission of RSA No.973 At the time of admission of RSA No.973 of 2010, vide order dated

12.03.2010, 2010, vide order dated 12.03.2010, with regard to possession shall be it was also directed that “status quo with regard to possession shall be with regard to possession shall be it was also directed that “ maintained by the parties.” maintained by the parties.” COCP No.885 of 2010 has been filed by the appellants Sansar Devi @ Sansar 26. COCP No.885 of 2010 has been filed by the appellants Sansar Devi @ Sansar COCP No.885 of 2010 has been filed by the appellants Sansar Devi @ Sansar COCP No.885 of 2010 has been filed by the appellants Sansar Devi @ Sansar status Bala and others, contending that the defendants had violated the order of status Bala and others, contending that the defendants had violated the Bala and others, contending that the defendants had violated the quo dated 12.03.2010 regarding possession by illegally entering in the suit 12.03.2010 regarding possession by illegally entering in the suit regarding possession by illegally entering in the suit property on 25.04.2010 at about 10-11 AM along with 4 property on 25.04.2010 at about 10 5 tractors and had 11 AM along with 4-5 tractors and had destroyed all the standing crops, fences, removed destroyed all the standing crops, poles, broke the lock of removed poles, broke the lock of kothri, damaged and took away irrigation pipes , damaged the agricultural equipments and took away irrigation pipes and took away irrigation pipes regarding which the matter was reported to the Police by way of filing written regarding which the matter was reported to the Police by way of filing written regarding which the matter was reported to the Police by way of filing written regarding which the matter was reported to the Police by way of filing written complaint (Annexure P-4). complaint (Annexure P RSA No.2115 of COCP No.885 of 2010 was ordered to be heard along with RSA No.2115 of COCP No.885 of 2010 was ordered to be heard along with 27. COCP No.885 of 2010 was ordered to be heard along with vide order dated 03.10.2010 passed in this COCP. vide order dated 03.10.2010 passed in this COCP. 2006 vide order dated 03.10.2010 passed in this COCP.

28. On the basis of written complaint Annexure 4 (appended with COPC No.885 On the basis of written complaint Annexure P-4 (appended with COPC No.885 4 (appended with COPC No.885 No.83 dated 08.05.2010 had been registered under Sections 147, of 2010), FIR No.83 dated 08.05.2010 had been registered under Sections 147, No.83 dated 08.05.2010 had been registered under Sections 147, No.83 dated 08.05.2010 had been registered under Sections 147, olice Station Ram Pura, 149, 323, 427, 440, 447, 379 and 506 of IPC at Police Station Ram Pura, 149, 323, 427, 440, 447, 379 and 506 of IPC at P 149, 323, 427, 440, 447, 379 and 506 of IPC at P District Rewari, Haryana (Annexure P-1, appended with CRM District Rewari, Haryana 2010) 1, appended with CRM-M-32841-2010) against Mahant Mahant Mahabir Dass Chela Baba Ghan Shyam Dass and others. Ghan Shyam Dass and others. Mahant Mahabir Dass Mahabir Dass and others had filed CRM 2010 for quashing and others had filed CRM-M-32841-2010 for quashing 1). of FIR No.83 dated 08.05.2010 (Annexure P-1). of FIR No.83 dated 08.05.2010 (Annexure P

29. CRM-M-32841 32841-2010, was ordered to be heard No.2115 of 2010, was ordered to be heard along with RSA No.2115 of order dated 1.12.2011, passed in this 2006 and RSA No.973 of 2010 vide order dated 1.12.2011, passed in this order dated 1.12.2011, passed in this 2006 and RSA No.973 of CRM-M. COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -13-

30. I have heard Mr. have heard Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate, learned s learned counsel for the appellants ) and Mr. Sanjiv RSAs, petitioner in COCP and respondent in CRM-M) and Mr. Sanjiv RSAs, petitioner in COCP and respondent in CRM (in both RSAs, petitioner in COCP and respondent in CRM Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate r Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for the respondent (in both RSAs, for the respondent (in both RSAs, ). respondent in COCP and petitioner in CRM-M). respondent in COCP and petitioner in

31. Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate, counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that erroneously dismissed the learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court erroneously dismissed the learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court the learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court father of the plaintiffs and husband the suit and first appeal. In fact, Jai Singh, father of the plaintiffs and husband father of the plaintiffs and husband the suit and first appeal. In fact, Jai Singh of deceased Rumal Kaur , had been in cultivating possession f deceased Rumal Kaur (original plaintiff), had been in cultivating possession , had been in cultivating possession of the 122 kanal kanal 16 marla of land since 1966 as tenant Ghan Shyam of land since 1966 as tenant under Ghan Shyam Dass defendant defendant, predecessor-in-interest of Mahabir Dass Mahabir Dass, defendant. After the death of Jai Singh, his widow had been in continuous possession of Jai Singh, Rumal Kaur, his widow had been in continuous possession his widow had been in continuous possession thereof, as tenant under said Ghan Shyam Dass thereof, as tenant under said during her life time on Ghan Shyam Dass, during her life time on payment of cash rent of Rs.1000/-. Ghan Shyam Dass continued payment of cash rent of Rs.1000/ to receive Ghan Shyam Dass continued to receive rent for the entire land till 1983 and last receipt rent for the entire land till 1983 and last ued by him in token of receipt issued by him in token of having received eceived rent till 1983 is Ex. PW-9/E. Vide receipt rent was E. Vide receipt PW-9/B rent was received for Kharif Kharif 1981 and Rabi 1982 and and vide receipt PW-9/E rent was received for Kharif Kharif 1982 and Rabi 1983. There is no justification for There is no justification for disbelieving the receipts Exs. PW-9/B and PW disbelieving the the signatures 9/B and PW-9/E which bears the signatures of Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant. There is no explanation from Ghan Shyam . There is no explanation from Ghan Shyam otal per annum rent how his signatures are obtained on these receipts. Total per annum rent how his signatures are obtained on these receipts. Dass how his signatures are obtained on these receipts. was @ of Rs.1000/- but vide these receipts, an amount of Rs.800/ was @ of Rs.1000/ as rent amount of Rs.800/- each, as rent was paid because vide receipt Ex. PW7/C dated 17.09.1966, Rs.4,000/ was paid because vide receipt PW7/C dated 17.09.1966, Rs.4,000/- was paid as rent for 20 years which was Rs.200/- per month from crop paid as rent for 20 years which was Rs.200/ 1966 per month from crop Kharif 1966 Ghan Shyam 1986 as per lease deed dated 29.08.1966. Thereafter, Ghan Shyam 1986 as per lease deed dated 29.08.1966. Thereafter, to Rabi 1986 as per lease deed dated 29.08.1966. Thereafter, COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -14- Dass refused to receive rent and refused to receive rent and Rumal Kaur had to take recourse to the Rumal Kaur had to take recourse to the provisions of Section 14A (iii) of Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1956 provisions of Section 14A (iii) of Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1956 provisions of Section 14A (iii) of Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1956 provisions of Section 14A (iii) of Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1956 was very influential person and he for depositing the rent. Ghan Shyam Dass was very influential person and he was very influential person and he for depositing the rent. managed to get the entries to get the entries in the cultivation column an area of 27 column regarding an area of 27 kanal 7 marla out of 122 out of 122 kanal 16 marla of land changed in the revenue record of land changed in the revenue record in his favour from Kharif 1982, in connivance with re in his favour from n spite in connivance with revenue officials. In spite of change in the the revenue record, Rumal Kaur, plaintiff Rumal Kaur, plaintiff (since deceased) and thereafter, her successors her successors-in-interest remained in possession. Ghan Shyam interest remained in possession. Ghan Shyam came in actual physical possession of suit property. Dass, defendant never came in actual physical possession of suit property. Dass, defendant learned trial Court and Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that learned trial Court and Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that 32. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that learned First Appellate Court had erroneously placed unstinted reliance upon learned First Appellate Court had erroneously placed unstinted reliance upon learned First Appellate Court had erroneously placed unstinted reliance upon learned First Appellate Court had erroneously placed unstinted reliance upon .66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 Rapat Roznamchas No.66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 .66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 Rapat Roznamchas dated 22.10.1981 and failed to appreciate that Rumal Kaur, plaintiff being dated 22.10.1981 and failed to appreciate that dated 22.10.1981 and failed to appreciate that could have been easily and rustic lady, her thumb impressions could have been easily and rustic lady, her thumb impression illiterate and rustic lady, her thumb impression on any pretext at the instance of Ghan Shyam procured by revenue officials on any pretext at the instance of Ghan Shyam on any pretext at the instance of Ghan Shyam procured by revenue official Dass. At the instance of At the instance of Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant 3 Nirjan Lal Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant, DW-3 Nirjan Lal Patwari secured her thumb impression secured her thumb impressions on some stating on some Rapat Roznamchas stating that she relinquished her tenancy rights in respect of the land in dispute in that she relinquished her tenancy rights in respect of the land in dispute in that she relinquished her tenancy rights in respect of the land in dispute in that she relinquished her tenancy rights in respect of the land in dispute in favour of Ghan Shyam Dass. When she came to know about it, she lodged favour of Ghan Shyam Dass. When she came to know about it, she lodged favour of Ghan Shyam Dass. When she came to know about it, she lodged favour of Ghan Shyam Dass. When she came to know about it, she lodged complaint against the DW-3 Nirjan Lal Patwari complaint against the with local Police but nothing 3 Nirjan Lal Patwari with local Police but nothing f that complaint. She also moved application before the Assistant came out of that complaint. She also moved application before the Assistant f that complaint. She also moved application before the Assistant f that complaint. She also moved application before the Assistant Khasra Collector IInd Grade, Rewari, seeking correction of entries of Khasra Collector IInd Grade, Rewari, seeking correction of entries of Collector IInd Grade, Rewari, seeking correction of entries of . which was eventually dismissed vide order dated 05.08.1985. which was eventually dismissed vide order dated Girdawari which was eventually dismissed vide order dated Ex.DA because because by that time, on the basis of that time, on the basis of Rapat Roznamchas, jamabandi COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -15- for the year 1983 the year 1983-84 Ex.PQ had been prepared and entries of Khasra had been prepared and entries of Khasra Girdawari till till Rabi 1985 had merged in the jamabandi Ghan Shyam Dass had merged in the jamabandi. Ghan Shyam Dass intended to forcibly dispossess to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. the plaintiff from the suit land. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that learned trial Court 33. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that learned trial Court Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that learned trial Court Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate that Jai Singh had been and learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate that Jai Singh had been and learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate that Jai Singh had been and learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate that Jai Singh had been r in cultivating possession of disputed property from 1966 until 1971 and after in cultivating possession of disputed property in cultivating possession of disputed property his demise in 1971, his widow, Rumal Kaur had been in cultivating his demise in 1971, h possession had been in cultivating possession on the same terms and conditions and had paid on the same terms and conditions and Rumal Kaur had paid rent regularly. Had Rumal Kaur surrendered the possession over suit property on 22.10.1981, t surrendered the possession o he rent up to ver suit property on 22.10.1981, the rent up to Rabi 1983 vide receipt would not have been paid. This falsifies 1983 vide receipt Ex. PW-9/E would not have been paid. This falsifies would not have been paid. This falsifies Ghan Shyam Dass the claim of the defendant that possession was delivered to Ghan Shyam Dass the claim of the defendant that possession was delivered to the claim of the defendant that possession was delivered to on 22.10.1981. . There was no occasion for her to surrender the possession There was no occasion for her to surrender the possession of misused his the disputed property in the year 1981. In fact, Ghan Shyam Dass misused his the disputed property in the year 1981. In fact, the disputed property in the year 1981. In fact, influence and took took undue advantage of illiteracy of undue advantage of illiteracy of Rumal Kaur, managed to get the revenue entries of cultivation of the land changed in his favour in get the revenue entries of cultivation of the land changed in his favour in get the revenue entries of cultivation of the land changed in his favour in get the revenue entries of cultivation of the land changed in his favour in Patwari concerned w.e.f. 1982. The connivance with DW3 Niranjan Lal Patwari concerned w.e.f. 1982. The Patwari concerned w.e.f. 1982. The connivance with change in the Khasra Girdawari Khasra Girdawari was kept a guarded secret and Ghan Shyam was kept a guarded secret and Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant continued to receive rent as proved from rent Dass, defendant receipts Exs. continued to receive rent as proved from rent receipts Exs. PW-9/B and PW 9/B and PW-9/E from Kharif 1981 to Rabi receipts were Rabi 1983. These receipts were issued by Ghan Shyam Dass under his signatures and thereafter, he stopped Ghan Shyam Dass under his signatures and thereafter, he stopped under his signatures and thereafter, he stopped receiving rent and only then Rumal Kaur, plaintiff receiving rent and only then . Rumal Kaur, plaintiff came to know of this fraud. are duly proved on record but learned The receipts Ex.PW-9/B and Ex.PW-9/E are duly proved on record but learned are duly proved on record but learned The receipts Ex.PW trial Court and learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate statements of trial Court and learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate statements of trial Court and learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate statements of trial Court and learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate statements of witnesses and erroneously erroneously held that these receipts are not proved. Signatures of held that these receipts are not proved. Signatures of COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -16- Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant on these receipts have been Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant xamining on these receipts have been proved by examining the handwriting Expert, PW4 Som Nath Aggarwal the handwriting Expert, , PW11 Krishana Bala and ath Aggarwal, PW11 Krishana Bala and PW9 Ram Swarup. There is no explanation from PW9 Ram Swarup. Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant There is no explanation from Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant for putting his signatures on these receipts in favour of Rumal Kaur, plaintiff. for putting his signatures on these receipts in favour of for putting his signatures on these receipts in favour of civil suit No.367 of 1981 Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submitted that civil suit No.367 of 1981 Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submitted that 34. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submitted that which was instituted by plaintiff was instituted by plaintiff Rumal Kaur on 30.03.1981 against Dharam on 30.03.1981 against Dharam Singh, Nihal Singh, Rohtash Singh and K ishan Singh son of Sultan Singh, for ihal Singh, Rohtash Singh and Kishan Singh son of Sultan Singh, for ishan Singh son of Sultan Singh, for raining these defendants from interfering in her permanent injunction restraining these defendants from interfering in her raining these defendants from interfering in her permanent injunction rest possession over land measuring 149 kanal 18 marla possession over land measuring 149 jamabandi for the marla as per jamabandi for the year 1978-79 as tenant under Sh. as tenant under Sh. Ghan Shyam Dass Chela Sh. Bhagwan Dass. Ghan Shyam Dass Chela Sh. Bhagwan Dass. The said suit had been had been decreed vide judgment Ex. Rumal Kaur, plaintiff Ex.PN and Rumal Kaur, plaintiff was held in possession over the suit land as tenant under Ghan Shyam Dass. was held in possession over the suit land as tenant under Ghan Shyam Dass. was held in possession over the suit land as tenant under Ghan Shyam Dass. was held in possession over the suit land as tenant under Ghan Shyam Dass. was in cultivating possession as tenant over This also proved that Rumal Kaur was in cultivating possession as tenant over was in cultivating possession as tenant over This also proved that whole of the suit property and the property was not in cultivating possession whole of the suit property and the property was not in cultivating possession whole of the suit property and the property was not in cultivating possession whole of the suit property and the property was not in cultivating possession through her alleged sub ough her alleged sub-lettees.

35. Learned counsel for the plaintiff wh ile addressing arguments in RSA No.973 Learned counsel for the plaintiff while addressing arguments in RSA No.973 ile addressing arguments in RSA No.973 of 2010 further further submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate that Ghan submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate that Ghan Shyam Dass filed civil suit against filed civil suit against Rumal Kaur rent for the Rumal Kaur for recovery of rent for the sum of Rs.3,000/- and for her eviction from sum of Rs.3,000/ 18 from land measuring 147 kanal 18 17 including disputed property which is subject matter of civil suit No. 17 including disputed property which is subject matter of civil suit No. marla including disputed property which is subject matter of civil suit No. dated 18.11.1987 before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rewari but the dated 18.11.1987 before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rewari but dated 18.11.1987 before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rewari but dispute was compromised and Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant dispute was compro got his statement Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant got his statement e the suit and same recorded to the effect that he did not want to pursue the suit and same recorded to the effect that he did not want to purs Ex.PX/2 recorded to the effect that he did not want to purs be dismissed as as withdrawn and that he would never eject withdrawn and that he would never eject Rumal Kaur from COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -17- . The suit was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn vide order land in dispute. The suit was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn vide order . The suit was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn vide order land in dispute dated 24.01.1979 Ex. Defendant No.1 executed one more lease deed 24.01.1979 Ex. PX/3. Defendant No.1 executed one more lease deed Defendant No.1 executed one more lease deed dated 19.02.1969

19.02.1969 Ex. PW9/1 accepting Rumal Kaur as an occupancy tenant Rumal Kaur as an occupancy tenant mise and to get her with an undertaking never to back out from the compromise and to get her with an undertaking never to back out from the compro with an undertaking never to back out from the compro Rumal recorded as occupancy tenant in the revenue record. In view of that Rumal recorded as occupancy tenant in the revenue record. recorded as occupancy tenant in the revenue record. Kaur, plaintiff and his successors and his successors-in-interest could not be denied the ownership interest could not be denied the ownership rights being occupancy being occupancy tenants.

36. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that on 22.10.1981 submitted that, on 22.10.1981 Panchayat was convened whereby, thumb impressions of Rumal Kaur were Panchayat was convened whereby, thumb impressions of Panchayat was convened whereby, thumb impressions of obtained on Rapat Roznamchas Ex. DW3/1, Ex.DW3/2 and Ex. DW3/3. There Rapat Roznamchas Ex. DW3/1, Ex.DW3/2 and Ex. DW3/3. There Ex. DW3/1, Ex.DW3/2 and Ex. DW3/3. There is nothing on record that contents of the said Rapat Roznamchas were is nothing on record that contents of the said is nothing on record that contents of the said in favour explained to her and she voluntarily executed the Rapat Roznamchas in favour explained to her and she voluntarily executed the explained to her and she voluntarily executed the of the defendants. The findings recorded by the learned of the defendants. T , he findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, by holding that the possession the appeal pertaining to civil suit No.17 of 1987 by holding that the possession the appeal pertaining to civil suit No.17 of 1987 the appeal pertaining to civil suit No.17 of 1987 had already been een delivered, stands settled in civil suit No.1080 stands settled in civil suit No.1080/1985. Since the First Appellate Court rendered in appeal against dismissal of findings of the First Appellate Court rendered in appeal against dismissal of First Appellate Court rendered in appeal against dismissal of findings of the civil suit No.1080/1985 had been challenged in appeal No.RSA civil suit No.1080 , had been challenged in appeal No.RSA-2115-2006, therefore, the said findings said findings could not have been taken into consideration. The not have been taken into consideration. The learned trial Court erroneously placed reliance upon entries learned trial Court dated 22.10.1981 placed reliance upon entries dated 22.10.1981 in Rapat Roznamchas Rapat Roznamchas No. 66, 67 and 69 Ex.DW3/1 to Ex. DW3/3 and failed DW3/1 to Ex. DW3/3 and failed dated 20.02.2007, to appreciate that at the time of passing impugned judgment dated 20.02.2007, to appreciate that at the time of passing impugned judgment to appreciate that at the time of passing impugned judgment the findings of learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court in civil suit the findings of learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court in civil suit the findings of learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court in civil suit the findings of learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court in civil suit No.1080/1985 had already been under challenge The been under challenge in RSA-2115-2006. The s plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as owners because their possession as plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as owner plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as owner COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -18- occupancy tenants is continuously tenants is continuously uninterrupted (original uninterrupted. Rumal Kaur (original never surrendered her possession. plaintiff) never surrendered her possession. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the learned trial Court 37. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the learned trial Court Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the learned trial Court Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court had erroneously and learned First Appellate Court had suit is barred under erroneously held that suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC. The earlier suit No. 1080/1985 Order II Rule 2 CPC. The earlier suit No. 1080/1985 filed by the plaintiff was cultivation is in possession as tenant and entries in the column of cultivation is in possession as tenant and entries that, plaintiff is in possession as tenant and entries in the revenue record were wrongly changed and she also sought decree in the revenue record were wrongly changed and she also sought decree for consequential relief restraining the defendant from permanent injunction as a consequential relief restraining the defendant from consequential relief restraining the defendant from permanent injunction as interfering in her possession her possession whereas, the civil suit No.17 dated

18.11.1987 the civil suit No.17 dated 18.11.1987 had been filed filed seeking declaration that plaintiff had become owner in plaintiff had become owner in possession in dispute prop in dispute property that also includes subject matter of earlier that also includes subject matter of earlier instituted suit No.1080 suit No.1080/1985 i.e. land measuring 27 whereas, measuring 27 kanal 10 marla whereas, subject matter of civil suit No. 17 dated 18.11.1987 pertains to subject matter of civil sui land measuring t No. 17 dated 18.11.1987 pertains to land measuring 103 kanal 9 marla marla and suit could not have been held as barred under Order II have been held as barred under Order II had not especially when the decision of earlier suit No.1080/1985 had not especially when the decision of earlier suit Rule 2 CPC especially when the decision of earlier suit attained finality. attained finality. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that proceedings under 38. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that proceedings under Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that proceedings under Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that proceedings under Cr.P.C) had been initiated Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short-Cr.P.C) had been initiated Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short aintiffs had against the parties by Sub Divisional Magistrate, when the plaintiffs had against the parties by Sub Divisional Magistrate, when the pl against the parties by Sub Divisional Magistrate, when the pl stay orders passed by this Court, the proceedings were presented copy of stay orders passed by this Court, the proceedings were stay orders passed by this Court, the proceedings were presented copy of adjourned sine die sine die. The plaintiffs had sown seasonal crop over 5 acre of land. . The plaintiffs had sown seasonal crop over 5 acres of land. Krishana Bala (plaintiff/PW11) along On 25.04.2010 at about 10AM when Krishana Bala (plaintiff/PW11) along Krishana Bala (plaintiff/PW11) along On 25.04.2010 at about 10AM when with her son and others were irrigating the crop, Mahant with her son and others w , irrigating the crop, Mahant Mahabir Dass, successor-in-interest of Mahant interest of Mahant Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant along with Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant along with COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -19- and others came on the spot with 5 Satvir Singh, Ram Avatar, Kalu Ram and others came on the spot with 5 and others came on the spot with 5 Satvir Singh, Ram Avatar, Kalu Ram tractors and damaged the standing crop and agricultural equipments, broke the tractors and damaged the standing crop and agricultural equipments, broke the tractors and damaged the standing crop and agricultural equipments, broke the tractors and damaged the standing crop and agricultural equipments, broke the lock of kothri and other things, took away 30 pipes, wire and poles, caused and other things, took away 30 pipes, wire and poles, caused and other things, took away 30 pipes, wire and poles, caused ed two sign damage to the tune of Rs.1 lakh. While going away they also installed two sign damage to the tune of Rs.1 lakh. While going away they also insta damage to the tune of Rs.1 lakh. While going away they also insta boards scribing scribing “Land of Baba Mohan Dass agricultural farm Bhiw n ohan Dass agricultural farm Bhiwan Krishana Bala and others raised alarm, Narinder Singh, Ajit Kharkhari”. When Krishana Bala and others raised alarm, Narinder Singh, Ajit Krishana Bala and others raised alarm, Narinder Singh, Ajit Kharkhari”. When and others Singh, Devi came on the spot and saved them. Mahabir Dass and others Singh, Devi came on the spot and saved them. Singh, Devi came on the spot and saved them. committed offence regarding which FIR No.83 dated 08.05.2010 had been committed offence regarding which FIR No.83 dated 08.05.2010 had been committed offence regarding which FIR No.83 dated 08.05.2010 had been committed offence regarding which FIR No.83 dated 08.05.2010 had been registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 427, 440, 447, 379 and 506 of IPC at registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 427, 440, 447, 379 and 506 of IPC at registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 427, 440, 447, 379 and 506 of IPC at registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 427, 440, 447, 379 and 506 of IPC at 1) against Police Station Ram Pura, District Rewari, Haryana (Annexure P-1) against Police Station Ram Pura, District Rewari, Haryana (Annexure P Police Station Ram Pura, District Rewari, Haryana (Annexure P or the plaintiffs prayed for initiating contempt them. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs prayed for initiating contempt or the plaintiffs prayed for initiating contempt them. Learned counsel f proceedings against the defendants and the persons named in the FIR for proceedings against the defendants and the persons named in the FIR for proceedings against the defendants and the persons named in the FIR for proceedings against the defendants and the persons named in the FIR for violating the stay order stay orders of this Court by way of acceptance of petition i.e. by way of acceptance of petition i.e. COCP-885-2010 2010 and for vacation of stay on the criminal tr ial in the abovesaid and for vacation of stay on the criminal trial in the abovesaid criminal case by way of dismissal of by way of dismissal of petition i.e. petition i.e. CRM-M-32841-2010. Rumal Kaur, earned counsel for the defendant submitted that Rumal Kaur, earned counsel for the defendant submitted that 39. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant submitted that plaintiff had relinquished possession over the property which is subject had relinquished her possession over the property which is subject possession over the property which is subject matter of both the suits both the suits, on 22.10.1981 vide Rapat Roznamchas No.66, 67 and Rapat Roznamchas No.66, 67 and 69 Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3, respectively reafter, the property respectively and thereafter, the property to be in possession of defendant and rent was never paid by the continued to be in possession of defendant and rent was never paid by the to be in possession of defendant and rent was never paid by the to be in possession of defendant and rent was never paid by the plaintiff thereafter thereafter. The receipts Ex. PW-9/B dated 22.03.1982 and Ex. 9/E dated 22.03.1982 and Ex. PW-9/E dated 07.07.1983

7.1983 were forged and fabricated not proved from the and were not proved from the statements of the witnesses. of the witnesses. The defendant never issued any receipts. Learned The defendant never issued any receipts. Learned f had not trial Court rightly held that receipts are not proved and plaintiff had not trial Court rightly held that receipts are not proved and plaintif trial Court rightly held that receipts are not proved and plaintif COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -20- pleaded and proved and proved how fraud was committed upon her when she thumb how fraud was committed upon her when she thumb . The fraud is to be proved by leading marked entries in the Rapat Roznamchas. The fraud is to be proved by leading . The fraud is to be proved by leading marked entries in the . The statements of witnesses examined by the cogent and convincing evidence. The statements of witnesses examined by the . The statements of witnesses examined by the cogent and convincing evidence plaintiff are not reliable. They were interest plaintiff are not witnesses who deposed in reliable. They were interested witnesses who deposed in favour of plaintiff. Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant favour of plaintiff. was not in a position to Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant was not in a position to owner of execute any agreement/compromise in favour of the plaintiff because owner of execute any agreement/compromise in favour of the plaintiff because execute any agreement/compromise in favour of the plaintiff because the suit property is Murti Thakurji. The plaintiff the suit property is cannot claim ownership rights . The plaintiff cannot claim ownership rights over the suit property. She and her successors over the suit property fulfill the he and her successors-in-interest failed to fulfill the criteria as stated stated in Section 5 of the Act of 1887 Act of the Act of 1887 and Section 3 of the Act of

1952. The plaintiff had he plaintiff had never challenged the entries . entries in Rapat Roznamchas No. 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 respectively, dated 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 respectively, dated 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 respectively, dated 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 respectively, dated regular second 22.10.1981. He vehemently prayed for dismissal of both the regular second 22.10.1981. He vehemently prayed for dismissal of 22.10.1981. He vehemently prayed for dismissal of appeals, contempt petition i.e. contempt petition i.e. COCP-885-2010 quashing 2010 and acceptance of quashing petition i.e. CRM , since the plaintiffs were never in possession CRM-M-32841-2010, since the plaintiffs were never in possession , since the plaintiffs were never in possession question over the suit property at the time of filing of the civil suits. Therefore question over the suit property at the time of filing of the civil suits over the suit property at the time of filing of the civil suits of violation of stay order or interference in their possession do not arise at all. of violation of stay order or interference in their possession do not arise at all. of violation of stay order or interference in their possession do not arise at all.

40. I have given considerable thought to the rival submissions an I have given considerable d have gone thought to the rival submissions and have gone through the records, statements of witnesses and documents carefully. through the records, statements of witnesses and documents through the records, statements of witnesses and documents

41. Substantial ques Substantial questions of law Nos. A to D in RSA No. of 2006 and Nos.1 tions of law Nos. A to D in RSA No.2115 of 2006 and Nos.1 and 2 in RSA No. 973 of 2010 are interconnected and are bein and 2 in RSA No. 973 of g taken up 2010 are interconnected and are being taken up for convenience. together for convenience. , There are concurrent findings of learned Courts below that Rumal Kaur, There are concurrent findings of learned Courts below that 42. There are concurrent findings of learned Courts below that plaintiff relinquished possession over the suit property on 22.10.1981 in the plaintiff relinquished possession over the suit property on 22.10.1981 in the plaintiff relinquished possession over the suit property on 22.10.1981 in the plaintiff relinquished possession over the suit property on 22.10.1981 in the presence of DW DW-3 Niranjan Dass, Patwari and others Rapat and others and entries in the Rapat COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -21- Nos. 66, 67 and 69 were made vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and Roznamcha Nos. 66, 67 and 69 were made vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and Nos. 66, 67 and 69 were made vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and Nos. 66, 67 and 69 were made vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 respectively, dated 22.10.1981. DW3/3 respectively, dated 22.10.1981.

43. the plaintiffs have examined 13 witnesses. In civil suit No.1080 of 1985, the plaintiffs have examined 13 witnesses. the plaintiffs have examined 13 witnesses. In civil suit No.1080 of Plaintiff No.2 Krisha iff No.2 Krishana Bala; daughter of Rumal was examined as PW11. Rumal Kaur was examined as PW11. Ghan The defendants have examined 7 witnesses including the testimony of Ghan The defendants have examined 7 witnesses including the testimon The defendants have examined 7 witnesses including the testimon Shyam Dass, defendant as DW7. Shyam Dass, defendant Bala (PW11) in her testimony corroborated the averments of plaint 44. Krishana Bala (PW11) in her testimony corroborated the averments of plaint Bala (PW11) in her testimony corroborated the averments of plaint Bala (PW11) in her testimony corroborated the averments of plaint and she specifically stated that suit land was cultivated earlier by her fath and she specifically stated that suit land was er and cultivated earlier by her father and thereafter by her mother, Rumal Kaur since 1965 thereafter by her mother, since 1965 at the annual rent of an amount of Rs.1000/ . The rent regarding the suit land was received by the Rs.1000/-. The rent regarding the suit land was received by the . The rent regarding the suit land was received by the and further defendant up to 1983. She also proved the receipt Ex.PW-9/E and further defendant up to 1983. She also proved the receipt Ex. defendant up to 1983. She also proved the receipt Ex. stated that Ghan Shyam Dass had never been in possession of the suit land. stated that Ghan Shyam Dass had never been in possession of the suit land. stated that Ghan Shyam Dass had never been in possession of the suit land.

45. The statement of PW-11 Krishana Bala is also corroborated The statement of PW by PW1 Pratap is also corroborated by PW1 Pratap Singh, PW2-Rohtash Rohtash, PW10-Dalip Singh. Rohtash during cross examination admitted that he had filed suit for 46. PW2-Rohtash during cross examination admitted that he had filed suit for Rohtash during cross examination admitted that he had filed suit for Rohtash during cross examination admitted that he had filed suit for recovery of money against Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant recovery of money against which had since been Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant which had since been dismissed. Dalip Singh during cross examination stated that he and his brother Jai 47. PW10-Dalip Singh during cross examination stated that he and his brother Jai Dalip Singh during cross examination stated that he and his brother Jai Dalip Singh during cross examination stated that he and his brother Jai Dayal filed a civil suit pertaining to 11 killas of land of temple against Dayal filed a civil s Ghan uit pertaining to 11 killas of land of temple against Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant on the basis of agreement to sell and that suit had been defendant on the basis of agreement to sell and that suit had been on the basis of agreement to sell and that suit had been dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Court and appeal filed by him is dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Court and appeal filed by him is dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Court and appeal filed by him is dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Court and appeal filed by him is pending in this Court. pending in this Court.

48. PW3 Mahinde r Singh, Upper Division Clerk of Haryana State Electricity PW3 Mahinder Singh, Upper Division Clerk of Haryana State Electricity r Singh, Upper Division Clerk of Haryana State Electricity Board proved that No. BAAG 569 was released on 31.08.1975. that meter No. BAAG 569 was released on 31.08.1975. COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -22-

49. riting and Finger Print Expert examined the PW4 Som Nath Aggarwal, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert examined the riting and Finger Print Expert examined the PW4 Som Nath Aggarwal, Handw thumb impressions and stated that the disputed thumb thumb impression ons mark Q1 the disputed thumb impressions mark Q1 and Q2 on the lease deed dated 13.8.1965, mark Q3 on the lease and Q2 on the lease deed dated 13.8.1965, mark Q3 on the lease deed dated

06.07.1966, mark Q4 on the lease deed dated 19. 06.07.1966, mark Q4 on the lease

8.66, mark Q5 on the receipt deed dated 19.08.66, mark Q5 on the receipt

7.1966, mark Q7 on the 7.1966, mark Q6 on the receipt dated 08.07.1966, mark Q7 on the 7.1966, mark Q6 on the receipt dated dated 06.07.1966, mark Q6 on the receipt dated receipt dated 17. ed 17.09.1966, mark Q8 and 29 on the agreement dated

8.1970 66, mark Q8 and 29 on the agreement dated 04.08.1970 were compared by him, with the sample thumb were compared by him, with the impressions mark SA of Ghan sample thumb impressions mark SA of Ghan - 4.1989 in original as well as with photo- Shyam Dass taken in the court on 11.04.1989 in original as well as with photo Shyam Dass taken in the court on 11. graphic enlargements Ex. PW-4/1 to Ex. PW graphic enlargements Ex. PW opined that the 4/1 to Ex. PW-4/10. He has opined that the disputed thumb impressions mark Q1 to Q99 and sample thumb disputed thumb impression Q99 and sample thumb impression he disputed mark SA were of one and the same person. He has also stated that the disputed mark SA were of one and the same person. He has also stated that t mark SA were of one and the same person. He has also stated that t signatures marks A1, A2 and A2A on the lease deed dated 13. signatures marks A1,

8.1965, mark A2 and A2A on the lease deed dated 13.08.1965, mark

7.1966, mark A4 on the lease deed dated A3 on the lease-deed dated 06.07.1966, mark A4 on the lease deed dated 7.1966, mark A4 on the lease deed dated A3 on the lease

2.1964, mark A8 on 66, marks A5 to A7 on the agreement dated 29.02.1964, mark A8 on 66, marks A5 to A7 on the agreement dated 29. 29.08.1966, marks A5 to A7 on the agreement dated 29. the receipt of the year 1981-82, mark A9 on the receipt dated 28. the receipt of the year 1981

4.1981, mark 82, mark A9 on the receipt dated 28.04.1981, mark A10 on the receipt d

7.1966, mark A11 on the receipt dated 10 on the receipt dated 08.07.1966, mark A11 on the receipt dated 7.1966, mark A11 on the receipt dated

3.1962, mark A13 on the 9.1966, mark A12 on the receipt dated 12.03.1962, mark A13 on the 9.1966, mark A12 on the receipt dated 12. 17.09.1966, mark A12 on the receipt dated 12. receipt dated 20.07.1980, mark A14 and mark receipt dated 20. A15 on the agreement dated mark A15 on the agreement dated e 1.1979, mark A16 on the receipt dated 15.06.1978, mark A17 on the 1.1979, mark A16 on the receipt dated 15. 24.01.1979, mark A16 on the receipt dated 15.

7.1983, marks A18 and A19 on the agreement dated receipt dated 07.07.1983, marks A18 and A19 on the agreement dated 7.1983, marks A18 and A19 on the agreement dated receipt dated

8.1970, were compared by him with the comparison signatures of Ghan 04.08.1970, were compared by him with the comparison signatures of Ghan 8.1970, were compared by him with the comparison signatures of Ghan 8.1970, were compared by him with the comparison signatures of Ghan

8.1985 Shyam Dass mark S1 present on the back of the stay order dated 16.08.1985 Shyam Dass mark S1 present on the back of the stay order dated 16. Shyam Dass mark S1 present on the back of the stay order dated 16. to S6 taken in the court on and also with specimen signatures mark S2 to S6 taken in the court on and also with specimen signatures mark S2 and also with specimen signatures mark S2 - 11.04.1989, in original as well as with photographic enlargements Ex. PW 4.1989, in original as well as with photographic enlargements Ex. PW- 4.1989, in original as well as with photographic enlargements Ex. PW COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -23- 4/11 to Ex.PW-4/17. He has opined that the disputed signatures mark A 4/11 to Ex.PW 1 to 4/17. He has opined that the disputed signatures mark A-1 to 19 and comparison signature and specimen signatures mark S2 to S6 were A-19 and comparison signature and specimen signatures mark S2 to S6 were 19 and comparison signature and specimen signatures mark S2 to S6 were 19 and comparison signature and specimen signatures mark S2 to S6 were the same person. He has proved his report Ex. PW-4/27. the same person. He has proved his report Ex. PW one of the same person. He has proved his report Ex. PW PW4 Som Nath Aggarwal when subjected to cross examination stated that he 50. PW4 Som Nath Aggarwal when subjected to cross examination stated that he PW4 Som Nath Aggarwal when subjected to cross examination stated that he PW4 Som Nath Aggarwal when subjected to cross examination stated that he writing of the receipt mark X. had not examined the body of the writing of the receipt mark X. had not examined the body of

51. PW5 Banvari Lal also proved signatures of PW5 Banvari Lal also proved signatures of Ghan Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant on PW5/A. agreement Ex. PW5/A. 6 Ratan Lal Stamp Vendor stated that as per entry No. 2755 dated 52. PW6 Ratan Lal Stamp Vendor stated that as per entry No. 2755 dated 6 Ratan Lal Stamp Vendor stated that as per entry No. 2755 dated 6 Ratan Lal Stamp Vendor stated that as per entry No. 2755 dated Ghan Shyam Dass, 8.10.1969 in his register, stamp paper was given to Ghan Shyam Dass, 8.10.1969 in his register, stamp paper was given to 08.10.1969 in his register, stamp paper was given to through Bhagwan Dass for agreement. defendant through Bhagwan Dass for agreement. through Bhagwan Dass for agreement.

53. PW7 Durga Prasad st 7 Durga Prasad stated that lease deed dated 13.

8.1965 was scribed by him ed dated 13.08.1965 was scribed by him on the instructions of Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant on the instructions of defendant. PW8 Kapil Kumar also proved entry No.64 dated 19.2.1970 vide Ex. PW8/A 54. PW8 Kapil Kumar also proved entry No.64 dated 19.2.1970 vide Ex. PW8/A PW8 Kapil Kumar also proved entry No.64 dated 19.2.1970 vide Ex. PW8/A PW8 Kapil Kumar also proved entry No.64 dated 19.2.1970 vide Ex. PW8/A nothing in his register and when subjected to cross examination, he stated that nothing in his register and when subjected to cross examination, he stated that in his register and when subjected to cross examination, he stated that was written in his presence. was written in his presence.

7.1966, PW9 Ram Swarup proved his signatures on the lease deeds dated 06.07.1966, PW9 Ram Swarup proved his signatures on the lease deeds dated 55. PW9 Ram Swarup proved his signatures on the lease deeds dated

29.08.1966 and

8.1966 and 04.08.1970. He also proved his signatures on re ceipt dated 8.1970. He also proved his signatures on receipt dated

18.04.1981 Ex. PW9/A

4.1981 Ex. PW9/A and receipt dated 12.03.1982 Ex. as well as and receipt dated 12.03.1982 Ex. PW-9/B as well as documents and receipt Exs. PW9/C, uments and receipt Exs. PW9/C, PW9/D and PW9/D and PW-9/E.

56. Cross examination of PW9 Ram Swarup is material piece of evidence. He Cross examination of PW9-Ram Swarup is material piece of evidence. He Ram Swarup is material piece of evidence. He denied any litigation pending between his brothers Dalip and Jai Dayal and denied any litigation pending between his brothers Dalip and Jai Dayal and denied any litigation pending between his brothers Dalip and Jai Dayal and denied any litigation pending between his brothers Dalip and Jai Dayal and Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant. He also express Ghan Shyam Dass ed ignorance regarding filing of . He also expressed ignorance regarding filing of civil suit by his brother against Ghan Shyam Dass civil suit by his brother against and that the same Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant and that the same cases pending was dismissed. He also expressed his ignorance regarding two cases pending was dismissed. He also expressed his ignorance regarding was dismissed. He also expressed his ignorance regarding COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -24- between his son Rohtash and Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant between his son Rohtash and Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant in the Court of SDM. At another stage of his cross examination, he admitted that a suit was . At another stage of his cross-examination, he admitted that a suit was examination, he admitted that a suit was Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant filed by his brothers Dalip and Jai Dayal against Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant filed by his brothers Dalip and Jai Dayal against filed by his brothers Dalip and Jai Dayal against on the basis of agreement. He also stated that he could not say as to by whom on the basis of agreement. He also stated that he could not say as to by whom on the basis of agreement. He also stated that he could not say as to by whom on the basis of agreement. He also stated that he could not say as to by whom receipt dated 18.04.1981 was scribed. He also receipt dated 18. whether 981 was scribed. He also was unable to disclose whether any payment was made at that time or not. He also deposed that he could not any payment was made at that time or not. He also deposed that he could not any payment was made at that time or not. He also deposed that he could not any payment was made at that time or not. He also deposed that he could not Ex. PW9/A was scribed. He also stated that ay whether and by whom receipt Ex. PW9/A was scribed. He also stated that Ex. PW9/A was scribed. He also stated that say whether and by whom receipt he could not disclose whether any payment was made at that time or not. he could not disclose whether any payment was mad he could not disclose whether any payment was mad PW12 Satish Kumar brought the summoned file titled Ghan Shyam Dass vs. 57. PW12 Satish Kumar brought the summoned file titled Ghan Shyam Dass vs. PW12 Satish Kumar brought the summoned file titled Ghan Shyam Dass vs. PW12 Satish Kumar brought the summoned file titled Ghan Shyam Dass vs. Rumal Kaur decided on 21. decided on 21.01.1979. 13/A of the PW13 Sumer Singh proved the copy of plaint vide Ex. PW-13/A of the PW13 Sumer Singh proved the copy of plaint vide Ex. PW 58. PW13 Sumer Singh proved the copy of plaint vide Ex. PW summoned file of case title Ghan Shyam Dass vs. Rumal Kaur. summoned file of case title Ghan Shyam Dass vs. summoned file of case title Ghan Shyam Dass vs.

59. Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant In order to rebut the evidence of these witnesses, Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant In order to rebut the evidence of these witnesses, In order to rebut the evidence of these witnesses, and corroborated the averments of stepped into the witness box as DW7 and corroborated the averments of and corroborated the averments of stepped into the witness box written statement. He stated that he had been cultivating the suit land for the written statement. He stated that he had been cultivating the suit land for the written statement. He stated that he had been cultivating the suit land for the written statement. He stated that he had been cultivating the suit land for the last 12-13 years. 13 years. About 10-12 years back, a Panchyat was held in the te mple at k, a Panchyat was held in the temple at and other persons Bharawas. Dharam Singh, Nihal, Rohtash and Rumal Kaur and other persons Bharawas. Dharam Singh, Nihal, Rohtash and Bharawas. Dharam Singh, Nihal, Rohtash and were present in the Panchayat and in that Panchayat, these persons were present in the Panchayat and in that Panchayat, these persons were present in the Panchayat and in that Panchayat, these persons were present in the Panchayat and in that Panchayat, these persons They also gave relinquished the possession of the land of the temple. They also gave relinquished the possession of the land of the temple. relinquished the possession of the land of the temple. statements before the Patwari, appended their thumb statements before the Patwari , appended their thumb impressions and nothing was ever taken by him from Rumal Kaur, plaintiff was ever taken by him from or her children regarding the Rumal Kaur, plaintiff or her children regarding the suit land after that day. The suit land had not been cultivated by suit land after that day Rumal Kaur he suit land had not been cultivated by Rumal Kaur . He also specifically stated that he was kidnapped and her children thereafter. He also specifically stated that he was kidnapped . He also specifically stated that he was kidnapped and her children Bhind and his thumb by Nihal, Rohtash and Dalip and taken to village Bhind and his thumb by Nihal, Rohtash and Dalip and taken to by Nihal, Rohtash and Dalip and taken to COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -25- impression was forcibly taken on stamp papers and no fraud was played upon impression was forcibly taken on stamp papers and no fraud was played upon impression was forcibly taken on stamp papers and no fraud was played upon impression was forcibly taken on stamp papers and no fraud was played upon ir possession on the land and appended their the persons who relinquished their possession on the land and appended their ir possession on the land and appended their the persons who relinquished the thumb impressions. thumb impression

60. DW1 Dharam Singh, 4 Gajender, DW5 Balbir, and DW6 Mani Ram Dharam Singh, DW-4 Gajender, DW5 Balbir, and DW6 Mani Ram 4 Gajender, DW5 Balbir, and DW6 Mani Ram corroborated the statements of DW7 Ghan Shyam Dass, corroborated the statements of DW7 Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant. who was deputed in the year also examined DW3 Niranjan Lal who was deputed in the year also examined DW3 Niranjan Lal 61. Defendants also examined DW3 Niranjan Lal 1981-82 as Patwari At the time of recording his statement, Patwari of Halqua Bhandor. At the time of recording his statement, At the time of recording his statement, 82 was produced in the Court by DW2 Rapat Roznamchas for the year 1981-82 was produced in the Court by DW2 82 was produced in the Court by DW2 Rapat Roznamchas specifically stated that at that time Dhani Ram Patwari. DW3 Niranjan Lal, specifically stated that at that time specifically stated that at that time Dhani Ram Patwari. s Kharkhari Bhiwan was part of Halqua Bhandor. Rapat Rojnamchas Kharkhari Bhiwan was part of Halqua Bhandor. village Kharkhari Bhiwan was part of Halqua Bhandor. No.66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 respectively, dated No.66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 respectively, dated No.66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 respectively, dated No.66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 respectively, dated

22.10.1981 were entered by him with his hand. 22.10.1981 were s by him with his hand. Rapat Roznamcha No.66 was thumb marked by Rumal Kaur and Bhikha Ram, Ram Swarup and Bhikha Ram, signed by Ram Swarup Nambardar (PW9) (PW9) and Surendar Nambardar Rapat mbardar. The contents of Rapat Roznamchas were read over to and she thumb marked the same were read over to Rumal Kaur and she thumb marked the same and she thumb marked the same Rapat after admitting the same to be correct. He further stated that contents of Rapat after admitting the same to be correct. He further stated after admitting the same to be correct. He further stated and she thumb No.67 and 69 were also read over to Rumal Kaur and she thumb No.67 and 69 were also read over to Roznamchas No.67 and 69 were also read over to marked these Rapat Roznamchas after admitting the contents thereof to be Rapat Roznamchas after admitting the contents thereof to be after admitting the contents thereof to be correct. He also proved the copies of these . He also proved the copies of these Rapat Roznamchas - Rapat Roznamchas vide Ex. DW- 3/1, DW-3/2 and DW 3/2 and DW-3/3. During the cross- admitted that -examination, he admitted that Nihal Singh was alive on 22.10.1981. Nihal Singh was alive on 22.10.1981

62. In civil suit No.17 of 1987 plaintiffs examined as many as 11 witnesses. In civil suit No.17 of 1987 PW4 plaintiffs examined as many as 11 witnesses. PW4 Som Nath Agg rwal, PW5 Banwari Lal, PW6 Rattan Lal Stamp Vendor, PW7 arwal, PW5 Banwari Lal, PW6 Rattan Lal Stamp Vendor, PW7 rwal, PW5 Banwari Lal, PW6 Rattan Lal Stamp Vendor, PW7 , PW11 Krishana Durga Prashad, PW8 Kapil Kumar Gupta, PW9 Ram Swarup, PW11 Krishana Durga Prashad, PW8 Kapil Kumar Gupta, PW9 Ram Durga Prashad, PW8 Kapil Kumar Gupta, PW9 Ram COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -26- ed in civil suit No.17 Bala, witnesses of civil suit No.1080 of 1985 are examined in civil suit No.17 Bala, witnesses of civil suit No.1080 of 1985 are examin Bala, witnesses of civil suit No.1080 of 1985 are examin The record as PW6, PW3, PW8, PW11, PW9 and PW12, respectively. The record as PW6, PW3, PW8, PW11, PW9 and PW12, respectively. of 1987 as PW6, PW3, PW8, PW11, PW9 and PW12, respectively. produced by PW3 Mahinder Singh Upper Division Clerk in HSEB in civil suit by PW3 Mahinder Singh, Upper Division Clerk in HSEB in civil suit Upper Division Clerk in HSEB in civil suit of 1985 is brought on record by PW4 Gurdial Singh in civil suit No.1080 of 1985 is brought on record by PW4 Gurdial Singh in civil suit of 1985 is brought on record by PW4 Gurdial Singh in civil suit of 1985 is brought on record by PW4 Gurdial Singh in civil suit when he stepped into the witness box as PW4 and then No.17 of 1987, when he stepped into the witness box as PW4 and then when he stepped into the witness box as PW4 and then No.17 of 1987 examined as PW7. PW13 Sumer Singh examined in civil suit No. 1080 examined as PW7. PW13 Sumer Singh examined in civil suit No. 1080/1985 is examined in rebuttal in civil suit No.17/ rebuttal in civil suit No.17/1987. ides these witnesses, 1987. Besides these witnesses, Suraj Bhan and PW10 Umaro plaintiffs examined PW2 Surjeet Singh, PW5 Suraj Bhan and PW10 Umaro plaintiffs examined PW2 Surjeet Singh, PW5 plaintiffs examined PW2 Surjeet Singh, PW5 Singh who in their respective oral testimonies corroborated the statement of Singh who in their respective oral testimonies corroborated the statement of Singh who in their respective oral testimonies corroborated the statement of Singh who in their respective oral testimonies corroborated the statement of Krishana Bala, daughter of Rumal Kaur; Krishana Bala, daughter of original plaintiff. Since their original plaintiff. Since their statements are on similar lines in both the civil suits, therefore, for the sake of statements are on similar lines in both the civil suits, therefore, for the sake of statements are on similar lines in both the civil suits, therefore, for the sake of statements are on similar lines in both the civil suits, therefore, for the sake of brevity, there is no need to reproduce their testimonies. brevity, there is no need to reproduce their testimonies. brevity, there is no need to reproduce their testimonies.

63. Copies of mutation Ex. PT and Ex. PU, its H utation Ex. PT and Ex. PU, its Hindi translation Ex. PT/T and . indi translation Ex. PT/T and Ex. PU/T, copy of statement of Ghan Shyam Dass, Ex. PV, copy of judgment and PU/T, copy of statement of Ghan Shyam Dass, Ex. PV, copy of judgment and PU/T, copy of statement of Ghan Shyam Dass, Ex. PV, copy of judgment and PU/T, copy of statement of Ghan Shyam Dass, Ex. PV, copy of judgment and and Ex. PX, agreement mark P2 were decree dated 18.11.1996, Ex. PW and Ex. PX, agreement mark P2 were and Ex. PX, agreement mark P2 were decree dated 18.11.1996, Ex. PW tendered in rebuttal evidence by the plaintiffs. tendered in rebuttal evidence by the plaintiffs.

64. l suit No.17 of The defendants examined Niranjan Lal Patwari as DW3 in civil suit No.17 of The defendants examined Niranjan Lal Patwari as DW3 in civi The defendants examined Niranjan Lal Patwari as DW3 in civi 1987 and proved the Rapat Roznamchas No. 66, 67 and 69 vide 1987 and proved the Exs. DW3/1, . 66, 67 and 69 vide Exs. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 DW3/3, respectively. Seven defendant witnesses are examined in civil suit No. 17 of 1987. Besides 65. Seven defendant witnesses are examined in civil suit No. 17 of 1987. Besides Seven defendant witnesses are examined in civil suit No. 17 of 1987. Besides Seven defendant witnesses are examined in civil suit No. 17 of 1987. Besides the testimony of Niranjan Lal Patwari DW3, the remaining witnesses who are the testimony of Niranjan Lal Patwari DW3, the remaining witnesses the testimony of Niranjan Lal Patwari DW3, the remaining witnesses Gowardhan, copyist DW1, Puran Lal Clerk examined in this civil suit are Gowardhan, copyist DW1, Puran Lal Clerk Gowardhan, copyist DW1, Puran Lal Clerk examined in this civil suit a (DW2) who proved the certified copy of plaint of civil suit titled (DW2) who proved the certified c Rumal Kaur opy of plaint of civil suit titled Rumal Kaur vs. Ghan Shyam Dass Ghan Shyam Dass as Ex. D1, Sh. Sunil Yadav, Advocate (DW 4) who 1, Sh. Sunil Yadav, Advocate (DW4) who COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -27- identified signatures of his father Surender Singh identified signatures of his father Rapat nder Singh Nambardar On Rapat Roznamchas Nos. 66, 67 and 69 vide Nos. 66, 67 and 69 vide Exs. DW3/1, DW3/2 and , Exs. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3, . He also stated about his presence at that time and that contents of respectively. He also stated about his presence at that time and that contents of . He also stated about his presence at that time and that contents of . He also stated about his presence at that time and that contents of these rapats were read over to Rumal Kaur, who put these rapats were read over to who put her thumb impressions on the same. Puran Singh (DW5), Puran Singh (DW5), Ram Avtar (DW6) and , Ram Avtar (DW6) and Dalip Singh Nambardar, During the proceedings of the civil suit supported the case of the defendants. During the proceedings of the civil suit During the proceedings of the civil suit supported the case of the No.17/1987, Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant had died certified copy of his had died. The certified copy of his statement recorded in civil suit No. 1080/1985 is exhibited vide Ex. DW20 in statement recorded in civil suit No. 1080/1985 is statement recorded in civil suit No. 1080/1985 is civil suit No.17/1987. civil suit No.17/1987. The documents tendered by the defendants are as under: The documents tendered by the defendants are as under:- Ex. D1- Ex.D2- Ex. D3- Ex. D4- Pedigree table Pedigree table Jamabandi for the year 1906-07 Jamabandi Jamabandi for the year 1938-39 Jamabandi Jamabandi for the year 1961-62 Jamabandi Exs. D5, D6 and D7- Rapat Nos.75, 78 and 79 Rapat Nos.75, 78 and 79 Ex. D8- Ex. D9 Ex. D10- Exs. D11 and D12- Ex. D13- Ex. D14- Rapat Nos.80-81 Rapat Nos.80 Pedigree table Pedigree table Mutation No.2325 dated Mutation No.2325 dated 02.

2.08.1988 Judgment and decree dated Judgment and decree dated 24.01.1994 24. General Power of Attorney dated General Power of Attorney dated 10.10.1983 10.10.1983 Mutation No.182 dated Mutation No.182 dated 09.12.1987 09.12.1987 Exs. D15 to D18- Jamabandis Jamabandis Ex. D19- Khasra hasra Girdawari COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -28-

66. In additional evidence, (civil suit No. 17 of 1987) a few In additional evidence, more documents were (civil suit No. 17 of 1987) a few more documents were - tendered by the defendants which are as under;- tendered by the defendants which are as under; Ex. D20- Ex. D21- Ex. D22- Exs. D23 and D24. Exs. D25 and D26 Ghan Shyam Dass Statement of Ghan Shyam Dass Statement of dated 13.8.1993 of in civil suit 13.8.1993 of in civil suit Ghan titled Rumal Kaur vs. Ghan titled Shyam Dass Shyam Dass Order dated 16.05.2002 in civil Order dated 16.05.2002 in civil suit titled Balram Dass vs. suit titled Balram Dass vs. Mahabir Dass Mahabir Dass Compromise dated 16.05.2002 in Compromise dated 16.05.2002 in civil s civil suit titled Balram Dass vs. Mahabir Dass Mahabir Dass Judgment and decree dated Judgment and decree dated 22.04.2006 22.04.2006 Order dated 08.04.2005 and Order dated 08.04.2005 and 23.12.2005 in civil suit titled 23.12.2005 in civil suit titled Sansar Devi vs. Sansar Devi vs. Ghan Shyam Dass Dass

67. examined Rajesh In rebuttal to additional evidence of the defendants, plaintiffs examined Rajesh In rebuttal to additional evidence of the defendants, plaintiffs In rebuttal to additional evidence of the defendants, plaintiffs Kumar, official from SDM Office (PW14) who proved the extract of Kumar, official from SDM Office (PW14) who proved the extract of Kumar, official from SDM Office (PW14) who proved the extract of Kumar, official from SDM Office (PW14) who proved the extract of - assessment register vide Ex.PW14/1 to Ex. PW14/4, Om Parkash Meter assessment register vide Ex.PW14/1 to Ex. PW14/4, Om Parkash Meter- assessment register vide Ex.PW14/1 to Ex. PW14/4, Om Parkash Meter x. PW15/14 and bills Ex. Reader who proved receipts Ex. PW15/1 to Ex. PW15/14 and bills Ex. Reader who proved receipts Ex. PW15/1 to E Reader who proved receipts Ex. PW15/1 to E PW15/A to Ex. PW 15/G. Copy of sale deed mark PXY PW15/A to Ex. PW 15/G. 1 is also tendered by Copy of sale deed mark PXY-1 is also tendered by the plaintiffs in rebuttal. the plaintiffs in rebuttal

68. Murti Thakurji Murti Thakurji is undisputed owner of suit property Ghan owner of suit property. Earlier Mahant Ghan was managing the affairs of temple and after his death, Shyam Dass, defendant was managing the affairs of temple and after his death, was managing the affairs of temple and after his death, Shyam Dass, defendant Chela the affairs of the temple were being managed by Mahant Mahabir Dass Chela the affairs of the temple were being managed by Mahant the affairs of the temple were being managed by Mahant The main question is whether the plaintiffs were Mahant Ghan Shyam Dass. The main question is whether the plaintiffs were The main question is whether the plaintiffs were Mahant Ghan Shyam Dass. Marusi (tenant) or (tenant) or Mujara Gair Marusi (tenant at will) the suit property (tenant at will) over the suit property COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -29- and at the time of filing of civil suits, they were in possession over the suit and at the time of filing of civil suits, they were in possession over the suit and at the time of filing of civil suits, they were in possession over the suit and at the time of filing of civil suits, they were in possession over the suit property. The plaintiffs have proved lease agreement Exs. PW10/2, PW11/1 to . The plaintiffs have proved lease agreement Exs. PW10/2, PW11/1 to agreement Exs. PW10/2, PW11/1 to Ex. PW3/8 , PW9/1 and receipts Ex. PW7/B, Ex. PW3/6, Ex. PW3/7, Ex. PW3/8 , PW9/1 and receipts Ex. PW7/B, Ex. PW3/6, Ex. PW3/7, PW11/3, PW9/1 and receipts Ex. PW7/B, Ex. PW3/6, Ex. PW3/7, , vide lease deed and Mark A ( in civil suit No.17 of 1987/2007). Undisputedly, vide lease deed and Mark A ( in civil suit No.17 of 1987/2007). and Mark A ( in civil suit No.17 of 1987/2007). Ex.PW3/1, the land was leased from 1965 to 1975 with stipulation that if rent Ex.PW3/1, the land was leased from 1965 to 1975 with stipulation that if rent Ex.PW3/1, the land was leased from 1965 to 1975 with stipulation that if rent Ex.PW3/1, the land was leased from 1965 to 1975 with stipulation that if rent for a period of 2 years continuously is not paid, tenant shall be liable to be for a period of 2 years continuously is not paid, tenant shall be liable to be for a period of 2 years continuously is not paid, tenant shall be liable to be for a period of 2 years continuously is not paid, tenant shall be liable to be evicted. Vide lease deed Ex. PW11/2 for a period from 1966 to 1981, the ide lease deed Ex. PW11/2, for a period from 1966 to 1981, the for a period from 1966 to 1981, the the tenant parties agreed that the lease period can be further extended otherwise the tenant parties agreed that the lease period can be further extended parties agreed that the lease period can be further extended ide agreement Ex. PW11/3, lease shall be liable to handover the possession. Vide agreement Ex. PW11/3, lease ide agreement Ex. PW11/3, lease shall be liable to handover the possession deed is extended . Thus, the tenancy in favour of Jai Singh extended from 1966 to 1986. Thus, the tenancy in favour of Jai Singh . Thus, the tenancy in favour of Jai Singh and thereafter in favour of his wife Rumal Kaur and thereafter in favour of his wife , was for a fixed period and Rumal Kaur, was for a fixed period and was not indefinite indefinite. In the copy of civil suit No.1080 of Rumal Kaur, . In the copy of civil suit No.1080 of 1985, Rumal Kaur, suit property as where pleaded that she was in possession over suit property as where pleaded that she was in possession o plaintiff nowhere pleaded that she was in possession o the tenancy was on or occupancy tenant rather she claimed that the tenancy was on or occupancy tenant rather she claimed that Marusi or occupancy tenant rather she claimed that payment of an amount of Rs.1,000/- per annum. The plainti payment of an amount of Rs.1,000/ ff in civil suit No. per annum. The plaintiff in civil suit No. Ghan claimed agreement of the year 1979 allegedly signed by Ghan claimed agreement of the year 1979 allegedly signed by 17 of 1987, claimed agreement of the year 1979 allegedly signed by Shyam Dass, defendant defendant that suit property would not be vacated. I n the said t property would not be vacated. In the said agreement, there was no reference of above noted 3 lease deeds agreement, there . Therefore, noted 3 lease deeds. Therefore, and learned First Appellate Court learned trial Court in civil suit No.17 of 1987 and learned First Appellate Court and learned First Appellate Court learned trial Court dgment of learned trial Court dated while deciding the appeal against judgment of learned trial Court dated dgment of learned trial Court dated while deciding the appeal against ju

20.02.2007 of learned trial Court rendered in 20.02.2007 of learned trial Court civil suit correctly in the said civil suit correctly concluded that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property had been as concluded that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property had been concluded that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property had been Mujara Gair Marusi (tenant at will). Mujara Gair Marusi COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -30-

69. The case of the plaintiffs is that never relinquished the possession The case of the plaintiffs is that Rumal Kaur never relinquished the possession never relinquished the possession Rumal Kaur over the suit property whereas, the defendant pleaded that Rumal Kaur over the suit property whereas, the defendant pleaded that over the suit property whereas, the defendant pleaded that delivered the possession of the suit property in favor of the defendants vide delivered the possession of the suit property in favor of the defendants vide delivered the possession of the suit property in favor of the defendants vide delivered the possession of the suit property in favor of the defendants vide dated 22.10.1981. In both the civil suits Rapat Roznamchas Nos. 66,67 and 69 dated 22.10.1981. In both the civil suits dated 22.10.1981. In both the civil suits Rapat Roznamchas Niranjan Lal Patwari is examined as DW3 who proved these Niranjan Lal Patwari is examine Rapat d as DW3 who proved these Rapat vide Exs. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3. In civil suit No.17 of 1987 Roznamchas vide Exs. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3. In civil suit No.17 of 1987 vide Exs. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3. In civil suit No.17 of 1987 vide Exs. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3. In civil suit No.17 of 1987 the defendants examined Sh. Sunil Yadav, DW4, who identified the sig the defendants examined Sh. Sunil Yadav, DW4, who identified the signatures of his father Sure Surender Singh Nambardar. (civil suit DW8 Sunil Yadav, (civil suit s No.1080) in his statement before the Court also stated that Rumal Kaur was No.1080) in his statement before the Court also stated that No.1080) in his statement before the Court also stated that not in possession over suit property it wa s being cultivated by Mandir. Mandir ssession over suit property it was being cultivated by Mandir. Mandir s being cultivated by Mandir. Mandir is in possession since 1981. The entries of Rapat Roznamchas is in possession since 1981. The entries of 66, 67 Rapat Roznamchas Nos. 66, 67 regarding and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981 regarding and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981 delivery of possession by Rumal Kaur in favour of Mandir, delivery of possession by are corroborated by in favour of Mandir, are corroborated by Ghan Shyam Gajinder Singh (DW4), Balbir son of Lala Ram (DW5) and Ghan Shyam Gajinder Singh (DW4), Balbir son of Lala Ram (DW5) and Gajinder Singh (DW4), Balbir son of Lala Ram (DW5) and stepped into the witness box (in civil suit Dass, defendant (DW7) when they stepped into the witness box (in civil suit stepped into the witness box (in civil suit Dass, defendant No.1080). Khasra Ex. P2 (civil suit No.1080) also proved that hasra Girdawari Ex. P2 (civil suit No.1080) also proved that Ex. P2 (civil suit No.1080) also proved that Rabi remain in cultivating possession on some part of the land till Rabi remain in cultivating possession on some part of the land till Rumal Kaur remain in cultivating possession on some part of the land till Murti 1981 and thereafter, in the column of possession, the defendant i.e. Murti 1981 and thereafter, in the column of possession, the defendant i.e. 1981 and thereafter, in the column of possession, the defendant i.e. is reflected in cultivating possession. Thakurji is reflected in cultivating possession. proved the The defendants had examined Niranjan Lal Patwari; DW3, who proved the The defendants had examined Niranjan Lal Patwari; DW3, who 70. The defendants had examined Niranjan Lal Patwari; DW3, who contents of Rapats Roznamachas No. 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 Rapats Roznamachas No. 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 No. 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 . The defendants had also examined other and DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981. The defendants had also examined other . The defendants had also examined other and DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981 witnesses who were present on the spot i.e. Mr. Sunil Yadav, witnesses who were present on the spot i.e. Mr. Sunil Yadav, who identified COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -31- signature of his father e of his father Surender Singh Namba xamining ambardar as well as by examining Gurjinder Singh as DW4 and Balbir as DW5. Gurjinder Singh as DW4 and

71. Rapat Roznamchas No. 66 dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/1 is pertaining to land Rapat Roznamchas No. 66 dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/1 is pertaining to land No. 66 dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/1 is pertaining to land Khasra No.6/23, 4 No.6/23, 4 kanal 4 marla and it recitals proved that on that day Rumal and it recitals proved that on that day Rumal ip Singh in the presence of widow of Jai Singh, Nihal Singh son of Dalip Singh in the presence of widow of Jai Singh, Nihal Singh son of Dal Kaur, widow of Jai Singh, Nihal Singh son of Dal Surender Singh Singh Nambardar, Ram Swarup Namba Surender Singh Singh rdar, Bhikha rdar, Ram Swarup Nambardar, Bhikha Chowkidar publically suffered statements Chowkidar publically suffered statement they have relinquished they have relinquished possession in favour of Ghan Shyam Dass Chela Sh. Bhagw possession in favour of an Dass Chela Chela Sh. Bhagwan Dass Chela Ram Saran Dass with their free consent and Mahant held cultivated Bajra in Ram Saran Dass with their free consent and Mahant held cultivated Ram Saran Dass with their free consent and Mahant held cultivated Khasra No.6/23 No.6/23 for Kharif 1983 and its Girdawari be sanctioned in favour of Girdawari be sanctioned in favour of Judge, Ist Class, Mahant. There is one civil suit pending in the Court of Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Mahant. There is one civil suit pending in the Court of Sub Mahant. There is one civil suit pending in the Court of Sub Rewari and one injunction order dated 02.

5.1981 is also issued which is in one injunction order dated 02.05.1981 is also issued which is in 5.1981 is also issued which is in all be operation and the same be considered as vacated and the writing shall be operation and the same be considered as vacated and the writing sh operation and the same be considered as vacated and the writing sh The rapat is signed by Nihal Singh, Bhikha Chowkidar, submitted in the Court. The rapat is signed by Nihal Singh, Bhikha Chowkidar, The rapat is signed by Nihal Singh, Bhikha Chowkidar, submitted in the Court. Ram Swarup N Nambardar and Surender Singh and thumb marked Nambardar and thumb marked by Rumal Kaur and endorsed by Niranjan Lal Patwari. Rumal Kaur and endorsed by Niranjan Lal Patwari. Rapat No. 67 dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/2 pertaining to land bearing Khasra Rapat No. 67 dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/2 pertaining to land bearing 72. Rapat No. 67 dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/2 pertaining to land bearing No.9/3, 4 kanal of land with similar recitals. kanal 17 marla of land with similar recitals. The subject matter of rapat No.69 dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/3 pertaining to 73. The subject matter of rapat No.69 dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/3 pertaining to The subject matter of rapat No.69 dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/3 pertaining to The subject matter of rapat No.69 dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/3 pertaining to land khasra No.8/21 No.8/21-22, 9/7-8-9-10-11-12-13 7 total 13-14-17-18-19-20, 10/3-7 total 113 kanal 15 marla marla out of which 4 Killas land bearing 22, out of which 4 Killas land bearing Khasra No.8/21-22, 10/3-7 is being cultivated by individually and remaining is being 7 is being cultivated by Rumal Kaur individually and remaining is being individually and remaining is being and Dharam Singh and its possession was cultivated jointly by Rumal Kaur and Dharam Singh and its possession was and Dharam Singh and its possession was cultivated jointly by given to Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant and this entry also bears recital that Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant and this entry also bears recital that and this entry also bears recital that COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -32- from kharif 1981, Mahant 1981, Mahant Ghan Shyam Dass had sown had sown Gowar and Bajra and in land bearing Killa No.9/11-12 Gowar was sown and the in land bearing Kill was sown and the Girdawari be entered in the name of Mahant. There is also another recital that except the entered in the name of Mahant. There is also another recital that except the entered in the name of Mahant. There is also another recital that except the entered in the name of Mahant. There is also another recital that except the land Khasra No. 8/21 there is a dispute regarding remaining land in No. 8/21-22, 10/3-7 there is a dispute regarding remaining land in there is a dispute regarding remaining land in

5.1981 is the Court of Sub Judge, Ist Class, Rewari and injunction dated 02.05.1981 is the Court of Sub Judge, Ist Class, Rewari and injunction dated 02. the Court of Sub Judge, Ist Class, Rewari and injunction dated 02. issued in the said suit and same be stood vacated and for this purpose, issued in the said suit and same be stood vacated and for this purpose, issued in the said suit and same be stood vacated and for this purpose, issued in the said suit and same be stood vacated and for this purpose, application shall be moved in the Court. application shall be moved in the Court.

74. Entries in Rapat Roznamchas 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and Rapat Roznamchas No. 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981 were made by DW3 DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981 Niranjan Singh Patwari in made by DW3 Niranjan Singh Patwari in discharge of his official duties. discharge of his official duties the Indian These entries are public documents under Section 74 of erstwhile the Indian These entries are public documents under Section 74 of 75. These entries are public documents under Section 74 of Evidence Act. This Section reads as under: This Section reads as under:- Section 74 of Indian Evidence Act Section 74 of Indian Evidence Act Section 74 of Indian Evidence Act “Public Documents The Public Documents-The The following documents are public following documents are public following documents are public documents :- documents : (1) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts (1) or records of the acts – of the sovereign authority, (i) of the sovereign authority, (ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and tribunals, and of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of a [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth] or, of a [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth] foreign country; (2) Public records kept [in any State ublic records kept [in any State] of private documents.” COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -33-

76. Section 74 (1) 74 (1) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam ya Adhiniyam, 2023 (for short-BSA) is Indian Evidence Act which reads as corresponding to section 74 of erstwhile Indian Evidence Act which reads as Indian Evidence Act which reads as corresponding to section 74 of under:- Section 74. of BSA- Public and private documents “Section 74. of BSA Public and private documents. (1) The following documents are public documents: (1) The following documents are public documents:- (a) documents forming the acts, or records of the acts (a) documents forming the acts, or records of the acts- (i) of the sovereign authority; (i) of the sovereign authority; (ii) of official bodies and tribunals; and (ii) of official bodies and tribunals; and (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive of (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive of (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive of India or of a foreign country; India or of a foreign country; on territory of private (b) public records kept in any State or Union territory of private (b) public records kept in any State or Uni (b) public records kept in any State or Uni documents. documents. - (2) All other documents except the documents referred to in sub- (2) All other documents except the documents referred to in sub (2) All other documents except the documents referred to in sub section (1) are private.” section (1) are private

77. The above referred provisions make it abundantly clear that the documents The above referred provisions make it abundantly clear that the documents provisions make it abundantly clear that the documents ionaries and forming the acts or records of acts of the state and public functionaries and forming the acts or records of acts of the state and forming the acts or records of acts of the state and which such functionaries are required to enter in books/registers in transactions which such functionaries are required to enter in books/registers in which such functionaries are required to enter in books/registers in which such functionaries are required to enter in books/registers in which occur within the circle of their own the course of their public duties, which occur within the circle of their own which occur within the circle of their own the course of their public duties personal knowledge and observations as such, functionaries are public personal knowledge and observations as such, functionaries are public personal knowledge and observations as such, functionaries are public personal knowledge and observations as such, functionaries are public documents.

78. Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for proof of public Section 77 of the erstwhile Indian Evidence Act provides for proof of public Indian Evidence Act provides for proof of public documents. This section reads as under;- documents. This section reads as under; “Section Section 77 of Indian Evidence Act Proof of documents by f Indian Evidence Act-Proof of documents by production of certified copies-- production of Such certified copies may be -Such certified copies may be COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -34- produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or of the public documents of which they purport to be copies.” of the public documents of which they purport to be copies. of the public documents of which they purport to be copies.

79. Section 76 of BSA BSA is corresponding to section 77 of Indian Evidence is corresponding to section 77 of erstwhile Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under; which reads as under;- “Section 76 o Proof of documents by production of Section 76 of BSA-Proof of documents by production of Proof of documents by production of Such certified copies may be produced in proof of certified copies-Such certified copies may be produced in proof of Such certified copies may be produced in proof of certified copies parts of the public the contents of the public documents or parts of the public the contents of the public documents or the contents of the public documents or documents of which they purport to be copies”. documents of which they purport to be copies documents of which they purport to be copies

80. where the custodian of It is clear from the reading of aforesaid provision that where the custodian of It is clear from the reading of aforesaid provision that It is clear from the reading of aforesaid provision that the public document, which any person has right to inspect, has given a the public document, which any person has right to inspect, has given a the public document, which any person has right to inspect, has given a the public document, which any person has right to inspect, has given a proof of the certified copy on demand, such certified copy may be produced as proof of the certified copy on demand, such certified copy may be produced certified copy on demand, such certified copy may be produced duly certified contents of public documents or its parts. Meaning thereby, a duly certified contents of public documents or its parts. Meaning thereby, a contents of public documents or its parts. Meaning thereby, a copy of ‘Rapat Roznamchas Rapat Roznamchas’ as maintained by the Patwari, is admissible as maintained by the Patwari, is per se admissible in evidence in view of aforesaid provisions. in evidence in view of aforesaid provisions.

81. In these cases, the entries in Rapat Roznamchas In these cases, the 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. Rapat Roznamchas No. 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. Niranjan Singh DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981 made by DW3 Niranjan Singh DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981 made by DW3 DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981 made by DW3 State of Patwari are duly proved in his own statement on oath. This Court in State of Patwari are duly proved in his own statement on oath. This Court in Patwari are duly proved in his own statement on oath. This Court in Punjab vs. Bakshish Singh, 2003 (2) Shim L.J. 1540 Punjab vs. Bakshis Singh, 2003 (2) Shim L.J. 1540 observed that ; “ ….. it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the entry “ ….. it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the entry “ ….. it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the entry “ ….. it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the entry of the Patwari is not genuine. There is no made in the Roznamcha of the Patwari is not genuine. There is no of the Patwari is not genuine. There is no made in the reason to disbelieve the Patwari also in this regard. The entry was reason to disbelieve the Patwari also in this regard. The entry was reason to disbelieve the Patwari also in this regard. The entry was reason to disbelieve the Patwari also in this regard. The entry was made in the original Raznamcha by an official concerned in the made in the original Raznamcha by an official concerned in the made in the original Raznamcha by an official concerned in the made in the original Raznamcha by an official concerned in the course of performance of his official duties and is admissible course of performance of his official duties and is admissible course of performance of his official duties and is admissible course of performance of his official duties and is admissible f the Indian Evidence Act. The learned lower under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned lower f the Indian Evidence Act. The learned lower under Section 35 o COCP RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -35- Appellate Court had entered into a detailed discussion in this Appellate Court had entered into a detailed discussion in this Appellate Court had entered into a detailed discussion in this Appellate Court had entered into a detailed discussion in this regard and I have no reason to disagree with the same. Hence, it regard and I have no reason to disagree with the same. Hence, it regard and I have no reason to disagree with the same. Hence, it regard and I have no reason to disagree with the same. Hence, it is hardly open to the State to call its records as of doubtful is hardly open to the State to call its records as of doubtful is hardly open to the State to call its records as of doubtful is hardly open to the State to call its records as of doubtful character.” character.”

82. These Rapat Roznamchas No. 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and Rapat Roznamchas No. 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and No. 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and Niranjan Singh Patwari in 22.10.1981 were recorded by DW3 Niranjan Singh Patwari in 22.10.1981 were recorded by DW3 DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981 were recorded by DW3 discharge of his official duties and a presumption of correctness is attached to discharge of his official duties and a presumption of correctness is attached to discharge of his official duties and a presumption of correctness is attached to discharge of his official duties and a presumption of correctness is attached to n Evidence Act. The burden lies upon the same under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. The burden lies upon n Evidence Act. The burden lies upon the same under Section 114 of the India In the person who asserts to the contrary to rebut the same by leading evidence. In the person who asserts to the contrary to rebut the same by leading evidence. the person who asserts to the contrary to rebut the same by leading evidence.