RSA No. 266 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.266 of 2007
Decided on : 18-03-2009
Shakuntla and others
....Appellants
VERSUS
Vikas Soni and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Sunil Pawar, Advocate for the respondents.
MAHESH GROVER, J
This is defendant’s second appeal directed against the
judgments of the learned Trial Court dated 1.6.2005 and that of the First
Appellate Court dated 16.9.2006.
A suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of mesne
profits/use and occupation charges was filed by plaintiff-respondent no.1
seeking eviction of the present appellants on the ground that they were
tenants on the land in question for a fixed term which expired by the efflux
of time. Notice dated 5.10.1995 was served upon the appellants-defendants
to vacate the premises which was not done. Accordingly, the suit was filed
The appellants contested the suit and pleaded that Jati Ram
(husband of appellant no.1) was family purohit of one Shri Sarab Narain
and he was not paying any amount to plaintiff or his predecessors.
Appellants pleaded gift of the suit property in their favour. However, it
was admitted that tenancy was initially created in the year 1968.
RSA No. 266 of 2007 2
Both the parties went to trial on the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit by
way of ejectment of the defendants?OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of arrears of
mesne profits/use and occupation charges against the
defendants?OPP.
3. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary
parties?OPD.
4. Whether the defendants have become owners of the suit
property?ODP.
5. Relief.
Both the Courts determined that the status of the appellants
were that of tenants in view of the categoric admission made by the
appellants themselves.
Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that findings
of both the Courts below are perverse and deserve to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has
contended that in view of the clear admission of tenancy made by the
appellants, there is hardly any ambiguity in the findings. It is alleged that
the gift as alleged by the appellants is not established.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the
considered opinion that the appeal is totally without any merit. The
appellants themselves have admitted that they were inducted as tenants and
even in pleadings they had not denied that they were admitted as tenants in
the year 1968. In view of the categoric stand taken, the findings
determining the status of the appellants as tenants cannot be termed to be
RSA No. 266 of 2007 3
perverse so as to warrant any interference in regular second appeal. That
apart there is no evidence to suggest that there was any gift deed existing in
favour of the appellants so as to change their status from tenants to that of
owners.
In this view of the matter, when pure questions of facts are
determined and no substantial question of law has been shown to have
arisen in the present appeal, the same being devoid of any merit is hereby
dismissed.
March 18, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge