Lachhman Singh And Another vs Shivala Vakya Gram Rania And Other on 11 November, 2009

RSA No.1023 of 2008 (O&M)                                                   1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

                               R.S.A. No. 1023 of 2008 (O&M)
                               Date of Decision:November 11, 2009



Lachhman Singh and another                         ...........Appellants


                              Versus



Shivala Vakya Gram Rania and other                  ..........Respondents


Coram:       Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina


Present: Mr.Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the appellants.
         Mr.Amarjeet Markan, Advocate for the respondents


                              **

Sabina, J.

Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent

injunction. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the Additional Civil

Judge (Junior Division) Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.2002.

Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed an appeal which was dismissed

by the Additional District Judge Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated

11.1.2005. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs.

The facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional District

Judge in paras 1 to 3 of its judgment, read as under:-

“1. Briefly stated, case of appellants was as follows:-

Appellants claims to be in possession of suit land as detailed in

the plaint for the last many years as `gair marusi’. Revenue record

shows respondent no.1 as owner of suit land. Appellants allege

that respondent no.1 is only a “Pattedar Duami” (lessee) of the
RSA No.1023 of 2008 (O&M) 2

suit land. Appellants claim that in civil suit no.817 of 1963 titled

as “Shivalya situated at village Rania Versus Gram Sabha Gram

Panchayat Rania”, Sub Judge II Class, Sirsa vide judgment and

decree dated 29.10.1964 had declared respondent no.1 as

“Pattedar Duami” qua the suit land. On the basis of abovesaid

judgment and decree dated 29.10.1964, requisite mutation no.

3614 dated 8.3.1967 had been sanctioned in favour of respondent

no.1. Respondent no.1 is stated to have filed an application

before Assistant Collector, I Grade Ellenabad seeking the eviction

of appellants from the suit land. Through present suit, appellants

sought a decree of declaration that respondent no.1 is not the

owner of suit land and impugned mutation no.3614 sanctioned on

8.3.1967 along with relevant revenue records relating to suit land

are wrong, illegal and are liable to be set aside and respondent

no.1 has no right to initiate any proceedings against the appellants

before any Authority or and Court. Appellants also sought a

permanent injunction restraining respondents from interfering

with their possession over the suit land in any manner.

2. Respondent no.1 contested the suit by filing a written

statement. Respondent no.1 admitted that it had been declared as

“Pattedar Dwam” qua the suit land vide judgment and decree

dated 29.10.1964 of a civil court. Respondent no.1 asserted that

in the eyes of law, it is owner of land in dispute. Respondent no.1

claimed that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenants

between it and appellants. Respondent no.1 pointed out that vide

order dated 14.10.1997, Assistant Collector I Grade, Ellenabad
RSA No.1023 of 2008 (O&M) 3

ordered the ejectment of appellants from the suit land. Appeal

filed by appellants against the abovesaid order of Assistant

Collector I Grade Ellenabad is said to have been dismissed by

Collector, Sirsa vide order dated 10.11.1998. Respondent no.1

prayed that suit of appellants be dismissed.

3. Appellants filed a replication reiterating their averments and

controverting those of respondent no.1″

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were

framed by the trial Court:-

“1.Whether the defendant-Shivala Vakya Gram Rania is owner of

the land or not?OPP

2.Whether the mutation no.3614 on the basis of judgment and

decree dated 29.10.1964 is wrong as alleged?OPP

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent

injunction or not?OPP

4.Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is time barred ?OPD

5. Whether the plaintiffs have estopped from filing the present

suit by own act and conduct?OPD

6. Relief.”

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the

opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that defendant No.1 was

not owner of the suit land. Consequently, mutation no. 3614 sanctioned in

favour of defendant No.1 on the basis of judgment and decree dated

29.10.1964 in Civil Suit No. 817 of 1963 was wrong. As per mutation in

question, defendant was shown as owner of the suit land. Plaintiffs had
RSA No.1023 of 2008 (O&M) 4

been inducted as a tenant in the suit land after the mutation was sanctioned

in favour of defendant as owner. The Courts below, after appreciating the

revenue record, placed on the file have observed that in the revenue record

i.e. copies of jamabandies and khasra girdawaries, defendants were shown

as owners of the suit land whereas the plaintiffs were described as tenant on

1/3rd batai. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 reads as under:-

“No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through

such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be

permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the

beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and

no person who came upon any immovable property by the license

of the person in possession thereof shall be permitted to deny that

such person had a title to such possession at the time when such

license was given”.

Thus, as per the said provisions, a tenant cannot deny the

title of the landlord. The Assistant Collector Grade I vide order dated

14.10.1997 ordered the ejectment of the appellants from the suit land. The

appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the said ejectment order was dismissed

by the Collector vide order dated 10.11.1998. Exhibit D9 is the copy of the

order dated 31.1.2001 wherein the plaintiffs had accepted the ownership of

the defendant. The said order as reproduced in the judgment of the trial

Court reads as under:-

“1. This is no stage for the petitioners to contend that Shivala

Vakya Talab Rania is not owner of the disputed land once the

revenue entries since jamabandi of 1920, Exhibit P11 hold the

respondent institution as a full fledged owner and the petitioners
RSA No.1023 of 2008 (O&M) 5

have accepted the situation as such through their forefathers.

2.The respondents Sahab Ram and Surjit Singh, have accepted

themselves as tenants on the disputed land and Shivala Vakya

Talab Rania as owner in a statement before ACIG and, therefore,

the petitioners cannot go against their own admission.

Resjudicata is applicable to them.

3. Whether the surplus law is operative and not operative qua the

land in dispute is an issue with Collector, surplus where the issue

has been raised already and as per respondent, it has been already

decided in their favour in the year 1999 (dated 28.7.1999

(Exhibit-A)

4. The tenant has no locus standi to deny the landlord tenant

relationship once he has been paying Batai himself and through

his forefather and therefore the reference of the civil courts here

and there as quoted by the petitioners cannot wipe out his

admission of the tenancy as discussed above. Moreover the

parties upto the level of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High

Court never challenged the fact of Shivala being a Dwami or half

owner and what has not been challenged upto the level of Punjab

& Haryana High Court, cannot be raised afresh now.

Therefore, on the basis of above findings of this

court, it is held that Mahant Dutt Gir as per mutation no.14141,

decided on 19.3.1996, Exhibit P10 was fully competent to file

application under Form K-1 and decisions of the Ld.ACIG,

Elenabad, Ld. Collector Sirsa and Ld. Commissioner, Hisar

Division, Hisar are perfectly maintainable on law and facts. The
RSA No.1023 of 2008 (O&M) 6

petitioners already own land to the extent of 5 standard Acres and

they deserve no settlement n the surplus land. In view of the fact

that there has been plenty of violence and threats noticed on the

land of respondent by different tenants, in the past, this court

orders that Collector, Sirsa, S.P.Sirsa and ACIG. Ellenabad would

ensure the implementation of the orders of the Revenue Court

under Form K-1 by 30.4.2001 and if necessary with police help”

In these circumstances, both the Courts had rightly dismissed

the suit of the plaintiff.

No substantial question of law arises in this regular second

appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this

appeal is dismissed.

( Sabina )
Judge
November 11, 2009
arya