Chander & Ors. v. Megh

Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the appellants Mr. PN Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent nos. 3 to 6 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is second appeal by plaintiffs who have remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. The plaintiffs filed suit alleging that they are in cultivating possession of the suit land measuring 58 kanals 13 marlas. Plaintiffs' predecessor Mulla was cultivating the suit land under its owner Puran Devi. After death of Mulla, plaintiffs are cultivating the same. Defendants claiming themselves to be mortgagees of the suit land obtained judgment and decree dated 1.12.1982 against Sohan Lal alleged son of Puran Devi on the basis of compromise whereby defendant no. 1 herein was declared to be owner of 2/3rd share of the suit land and Sohan Lal defendant no. 2 was Regular Second Appeal No. 878 of 2007 -2- declared to be owner of 1/3rd share of the suit land. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 have sold the suit land to defendant nos. 3 to 6. Nand Lal and others were recorded to be gair marusi awal and the plaintiffs were recorded as gair marusi doyam under Nand Lal etc. in the revenue record relating to the suit land. Defendants obtained ejectment order against the plaintiffs from the revenue court. Commissioner, Gurgaon passed ejectment order dated

31.1.1994. The same was confirmed by Financial Commissioner vide order dated 18.9.1996. The plaintiffs, however, alleged that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The defendants, however, claimed to have dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land vide reports dated 17.10.1996 and 26.10.1996. The plaintiffs alleged that the said proceedings are fictitious and the plaintiffs continue to be in possession of the suit land. Plaintiffs claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land. It was also prayed that if during the pendency of the suit, defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land, then decree for mandatory injunction or possession be also passed. Plaintiffs also sought declaration that the aforesaid proceedings dated 17.10.1996 and 26.10.1996 regarding delivery of possession of the suit land are null and void, forged and fabricated and not binding on the plaintiffs who continued to be in physical cultivating possession of the suit land. Defendants no. 3 to 6 contested the suit and controverted the allegations of the plaintiff and raised various other pleas. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 12.6.2002 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Regular Second Appeal No. 878 of 2007 -3- First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 17.10.2006. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The plaintiffs have themselves alleged that their predecessor Mulla was tenant over the suit land and after death of Mulla, the plaintiffs cultivated the land as tenant. However, nevertheless the plaintiffs denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It may be added that Puran Devi was owner of the suit land under whom plaintiffs were cultivating the suit land. According to their version, defendant no. 2 Sohan Lal and defendant no. 1 claiming through Puran Devi have transferred the suit land to defendants no. 3 to 6. Defendants no. 3 to 6 have obtained ejectment order from competent revenue court against the plaintiffs. Consequently, the plaintiffs have no case whatsoever. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the plaintiffs were wrongly recorded as gair marusi doyam under Nand Lal etc. However, the plaintiffs were ordered to be ejected by competent revenue court. Moreover, there is no material on record to substantiate the aforesaid contention of the appellants because according to the revenue record, the appellants were gair marusi doyam under Nand Lal etc. who was gair marusi awal. There is no other material evidence to depict that the appellants were directly tenants under Puran Devi or her successor-in- interest. Regular Second Appeal No. 878 of 2007 -4- Learned counsel for the appellants also vehemently contended that Madan Lal Patwari while appearing as PW2 has stated that reports dated 17.10.1996 and 26.10.1996 Ex. P1 and P/2 respectively recorded in Roznamcha Patwari had not been signed by any party, witnesses or revenue officer etc. and consequently, the said reports are only paper transactions. The contention although apparently attractive is completely misleading and devoid of merit. The aforesaid reports were recorded in Roznamcha Patwari on the basis of reports regarding delivery of possession of the suit land made on warrants of possession issued by revenue court pursuant to ejectment order. The said reports made on the warrants of possession have been duly signed by Office Kanungo who got the possession delivered, Patwari and also by witnesses and other persons as is manifest from the copies of the reports Ex. P1 and P/2. Consequently, it cannot be said that proceedings regarding delivery of possession were only paper transactions. Defendants have taken possession of the suit land from the plaintiffs in due course of law by executing warrant of possession issued by revenue court pursuant to ejectment order passed against the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs started another round of litigation by filing the instant suit. The defendants could do nothing more than to take possession of the suit land in due course of law which they did. However, plaintiffs still implicated defendants in false and frivolous litigation by instituting this suit. In the earlier round of litigation, plaintiffs remained unsuccessful upto this Court in challenging the ejectment order.Still the plaintiffs initiated another round of litigation knowing that after passing of ejectment order and delivery of Regular Second Appeal No. 878 of 2007 -5- possession pursuant thereto to the defendants in due course of law, the plaintiffs were left with no right, title or interest in the suit land. Plaintiffs were not even satisfied with the judgment of the trial court and the lower appellate court and have filed the instant second appeal which is completely frivolous and bereft of any merit. Learned counsel for the respondents has also pointed out that the plaintiffs had even challenged the ejectment order passed by Commissioner and Financial Commissioner by filing CWP No. 16525 of 1996, Annexure R/1 which was dismissed by this Court on 18.10.1996 vide order Annexure R/2 but this fact has been concealed by the plaintiffs in the plaint. There is considerable force in the contention. Perusal of the plaint reveals that no reference to the aforesaid writ petition and dismissal thereof has been made in the plaint although the plaint was instituted after dismissal of the said writ petition. From the aforesaid, it becomes manifest that the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands. The plaintiffs also have no case whatsoever. The instant second appeal is completely frivolous and meritless and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs to curb frivolous litigation. Plaintiffs having failed upto this Court by filing writ petition Annexure R/1 approached the civil court without having any claim or right whatsoever. Both the courts below have correctly non-suited the plaintiffs. There is no infirmity or illegality in the judgments of the courts below. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for Regular Second Appeal No. 878 of 2007 -6- determination in this second appeal. Accordingly, the instant second appeal is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs 25,000/-. March 23, 2010 'tiwana' ( L.N. Mittal ) Judge