Ram Singh v. Prakashveer Singh & Ors.

record Annexure A-2 i.e. a written statement filed by Smt. Hardei before the Revenue Authorities and Annexure A-3, an order dated 11.1.2010 passed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Hisar wherein the applicant has been impleaded as a party. In the aforesaid proceedings for correction of Khasra Girdawari Hardei, daughter of Bheru Ram has admitted that the appellant was the adopted son of Bheru Ram and was in cultivating RSA No.1000 of 2010 (O&M) 2 possession over the suit land. It has been further submitted in this application for additional evidence that the appellant had come to know about the aforesaid factum after the decision of the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court and the said documents were just necessary for decision of the case and therefore, the appellant be permitted to place on record these documents by way of an additional evidence. I have perused the application and the aforesaid documents. Simply because in the proceedings for correction of Khasra Girdawari a stand has been taken by Hardei alleged daughter of Ram Singh, it cannot be said that the factum of adoption of Ram Singh by Bheru has been proved. Thus, in my view, the aforesaid documents are wholly insufficient to prove the assertion of the appellant and therefore, prayer of the appellant for allowing him to lead additional evidence by placing on record the aforesaid documents is declined. RSA No.1000 of 2010 (O&M) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby appeal filed by the defendant-respondents has been accepted and suit of the appellant for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering in his possession has been dismissed by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. As per the averments, one Bheru Ram was a Gair Marusi tenant on 1/3rd Batai in the suit land. Bheru Ram, father of the appellant, has been shown to be in continuous possession of the land in dispute in the revenue record. After his death, the appellant being his adopted son came in cultivating possession of the land in dispute as tenant on payment of 1/3rd Batai. However, on 20.8.2005, the defendant-respondents came on the spot and started interfering in his possession. He requested them no to RSA No.1000 of 2010 (O&M) 3 do so but in vain which necessitated him to file the present suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondents from interfering in his possession over the land in dispute. Upon notice, the respondents appeared and filed joint written statement. Various preliminary objections were raised including that the appellant had no locus standi to file the suit as he was not adopted son of deceased Bheru Ram. It was further submitted that Bheru had two daughters and plaintiff had no concern with him. It was further alleged that Bheru had expired in the year 1956 and after his death, the appellant never came in possession over the land in dispute. The appellant had also filed an application to Agroha police submitting that he was adopted son of Bheru Ram but after due investigation, the police came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was never adopted by Bheru Ram. It was further submitted that the defendants had purchased the land in dispute on

9.1.1998, and, since then, they were in possession over the land in dispute. They had also installed a tubewell in the land and were irrigating the same from the aforesaid tubewell. All other allegations mentioned in the plaint were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed. Replication controverting the plea raised in the written statement and reasserting those made in the plaint was filed by the appellant. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 23.10.2008 decreed the suit restraining the respondents from interfering in possession of the plaintiff-appellant over the land in dispute except in due course of law. It may also be relevant to point out that while decreeing the suit in favour of the appellant, the trial Court had not given any finding regarding adoption of the appellant and it was observed that the only limited question for consideration before the Court was to see whether or not the plaintiff- RSA No.1000 of 2010 (O&M) 4 appellant was in possession of the suit property and it was immaterial whether or not the plaintiff was ever adopted by Bheru and on evaluation of the evidence held that a person in settled possession without title is entitled to protect his possession even against a true owner. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant-respondents preferred an appeal which was accepted by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 4.12.2009 and the judgment of the trial Court was set aside resulting into dismissal of the suit. While accepting the appeal filed by the defendant-respondents, the Lower Appellate Court concluded that except the oral assertion of the plaintiff-appellant, there was no other evidence which could prove his cultivating possession. Neither he had produced even a single receipt of Batai from his owner in respect of the land in dispute; nor did he produce the owner of the land to prove his continuous possession under whom he claimed his tenancy. The Lower Appellate Court also observed that in the revenue record produced by the apellant, his name does not figure anywhere in the jamabandi or Girdawari in the column of cultivation; rather PW-2 Shish Pal admitted in his cross- examination that the land in dispute was purchased by the defendant- respondents and they have installed a tubewell in the land in dispute. The Lower Appellate Court also held that the appellant has failed to prove that he was adopted son of Bheru Ram. Not satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, the appellant has filed the instant appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that from the revenue record produced on record, it is established that Bheru Ram adoptive father of the appellant was in possession of the land in dispute as Gair Marusi tenant on Batai and even Girdawari Ex.P-7 for the RSA No.1000 of 2010 (O&M) 5 year 1981-82 reveals that the land in dispute on which Bheru Ram was in possession as Gair Marusi, the name of the appellant is shown in column No.13 meaning thereby that the plaintiff was in possession of the property in dispute. That apart, from the sale deed Ex.D1 dated 19.1.1998 it reveals that the property in dispute was purchased by the defendant- respodnents from Satyavir wherein it is clearly mentioned that the land in dispute was in possession of Bheru Ram etc. as Gair Marusi tenant on 1/3rd Batai and only ownership rights were given to the respondent. Elaborating his argument further, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that inspite of the aforesaid evidence, the findings have been returned against the appellant and the same suffer from perversity and are liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decree. From the arguments raised the only point of dispute in this case which requires determination, is as to whether or not the plaintiff- appellant is in possession of the suit property being the adopted son of the Bheru Ram. Admittedly, the appellant is claiming his right over the suit property being the adopted son of Bheru Ram, who has been shown to be Gair Marusi tenant on Batai in the revenue record. However, a finding of fact has been recorded by the Courts below that the appellant has failed to prove that he is the adopted son of Bheru. Not only this, no worthwhile argument has been raised before this Court to prove his assertion regarding the aforesaid issue and at best, the argument raised by the appellant is to the effect that he is in settled possession and therefore, entitled to protect the same even against a true owner. However, even from the evidence which has been referred to by the appellant before this Court, it is clearly established that the respondents are owners of the suit property RSA No.1000 of 2010 (O&M) 6 and Bheru Ram was in possession of the suit property till his death. Even otherwise, no evidence has come on record to show as to how the appellant came into possession of the suit property. His only claim to the suit property is through Bheru Ram whom he alleges to be his adoptive father. However, the Courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the appellant has failed to prove that he is the adopted son of Bheru Ram and even before this Court, the aforesaid finding could not be challenged by him. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law, as mentioned by the appellant in his grounds of appeal, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. July 2, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE