Niranjan Singh v. Sardar Singh & Ors.

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the appellant. ... K.C. Puri, J. Challenge in the present regular second appeal is to the judgment dated 14.6.2008 passed by Sh. C.B. Jaglian, District Judge, Yamua Nagar and judgment dated 20.7.2007 passed by Mrs. Sonika Goel, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri. The case of Sardar Singh – plaintiff before the trial Court was that he is in possession of the suit property as Gair Marusi and is regularly paying the rent. The revenue entries also depict the same position. The defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property, but they in collusion with each other wanted to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Hence the suit. On put to notice, defendants filed the written statement R.S.A. No. 949 of 2009 -2- taking preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability; locus standi etc. It is pleaded that plaintiff is neither in possession nor has any right in the suit property. Mohan Singh s/o Pritam Singh is in possession of the suit property as lessee under defendant No.1, who is tenant under Central Government at the rate of Rs.5,000/- as lease money. framed:- From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property as sub tenant of the defendants? If so, its effect? OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false and frivolous as it is Mohan Singh who is sub tenant of the defendants? OPD

3. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed with special costs? OPD

4. Relief. Plaintiff himself appeared as PW-1 and tendered certain documents. In rebuttal, defendant – Niranjan Singh himself appeared as DW-1 and also examined DW-2 Harvinder Singh and closed the evidence. Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence, returned the finding on issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and issue No.3 was decided against the defendants. Issue No.2 was also decided against the defendants. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction was decreed. Feeling dissatisfied with the above judgment dated

20.7.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, the R.S.A. No. 949 of 2009 -3- Niranjan Singh – one of the defendants, preferred the Ist appeal before the District Judge, Yamuna Nagar. The said appeal was dismissed by the District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, vide judgment dated

14.6.2008. Still feeling dissatisfied, the defendant-appellant has challenged the judgment dated 14.6.2008 and judgment dated

20.7.2007, referred to above, by filing the present regular second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant in paragraph No. 15 of the grounds of appeal has mentioned that following substantial questions of law have arisen:- i) Whether the judgment and decree dated 20.7.2007 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar, as well as the judgment and decree dated 14.6.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar are illegal, unjust, arbitrary, against the evidence and the same are liable to be reversed by this Hon'ble Court? ii) Whether the plaintiff has been proved to be in possession of the disputed land in view of the inconsistent vague, unspecified evidence adduced by him? iii)Whether the evidence can be read beyond the pleadings? iv)Whether the finding recorded by the Learned District Judge in judgment and decree dated 14.6.2008 are erroneous and self contradictory? v) Whether the judgment and decree dated 20.7.2007 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar R.S.A. No. 949 of 2009 -4- as well as the judgment and decree dated 14.6.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar are perverse being against the evidence? Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the case of the plaintiff regarding possession is not proved at all. The plaintiff is claiming to be tenant of Central Government, whereas as per evidence, he has stated that he is sub-tenant of defendant-appellant. Both the Courts below have mis-read and mis-interpreted the evidence of the file in this regard. Both the Courts below have looked into the evidence beyond pleadings, which cannot be allowed. The judgments of Courts below are erroneous, in as much as, both the Courts below have mis-read and mis-interpreted the evidence on the file. I have carefully considered the said submissions, but do not find any force in these submissions. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out how the finding of both the Courts below regarding the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property is wrong. It has also not been pointed out how the trial Court has mis- read and mis-interpreted the evidence on the file. It has also not been pointed out how the evidence beyond pleadings have been taken into consideration by both the Courts below. The revenue record proves the possession of the plaintiff. Even defendant-appellant has admitted that at one time the plaintiff was lessee of defendant No.1. The defendants have not produced any evidence that plaintiff has surrendered the possession and to whom at any stage of trial. The Central Government is the owner of the property in question. The fact R.S.A. No. 949 of 2009 -5- that Mohan Singh is in possession is not proved on the file. Moreover, there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. That being a finding of fact cannot be interfered in the second appeal. In view of the above discussion, all the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant in the present appeal, stand answered against the appellant. In fact, except the question that both the Courts below have mis-read and mis-interpreted the evidence, no other substantial question of law has arisen in the appeal. The said substantial question of law cannot be decided in favour of the appellant as no argument has been addressed during the course of arguments that in which manner both the Courts below have mis-read and mis-interpreted the evidence. So, that substantial question of law stands answered against the appellant. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.

20.7.2010 ( K.C. Puri ) Judge