Gurcharan Singh vs Gram Panchayat and Another

Swatanter Kumar, J.—This revision is directed against the order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, dated 20.8.1998 vide which the appeal preferred by the respondent-defendant was allowed.

The plaintiff, petitioner herein, had filed a suit for injunction stating that he is in possession of land measuring about 108 kanals 8 marlas as detailed in the plaint. Entries to this effecting as shown in the revenue record for the year 1991-92 continue for the more than 30 years without any interference from the defendants. It was further averred that the defendants had no concern with the land and by getting wrong entry effected in the revenue record, the defendants were threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land forcibly. It was stated that one Major Singh was identically placed and was enjoying such type of land.

The suit was contested by the Gram Panchayat who stated that they were the recorded owners of the land. They challenged the very locus-standi of the plaintiff to file the suit. It was stated that the plaintiff had been granted lease for one year by the Gram Panchayat of the land in question and all the revenue entries are in the name of the Gram Panchayat and Gurcharan Singh is a tenant.

The learned trial Court allowed the injunction application and restrained the respondents herein from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff. However, on appeal by the Gram Panchayat, the application of the plaintiff for injunction was dismissed giving rise to the present revision.

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the parties produced copies of the relevant records. The bare reading of the plaint shows that the plaintiff claims ownership by adverse possession. It is stated in paragraphs No. 1 and 2 of the plaint that the petitioner was in possession which was peaceful, open, continuous and hostile of the above said land, for more than 30 years, without any interference and as such had prayed for the relief of injunction.

As already noticed in the written statement various preliminary objections were taken including non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. the co-owners of the land. It was stated that different persons have been in possession of the land in question for which the lease was granted to them for four years i.e. from 1994-95 to 1997-98.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the cases titled Walter Louis Franklin (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. George Singh (Dead) Through Lrs., and Teji and Others Vs. Municipal Committee, to contend that tbe petitioner being in possession of the suit land cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents relted upon the cases of Gram Panchayat Vs. Singh Ram and Others, and Roshan alias Roshan Lal and Others Vs. Secretary, Govt. of Haryana Development and Panchayat Deptt. and Others, to argue that the petitioner was a lessee and as such could never claim adverse possession against the true owner and further it is contended that even in equity, the petitioner is not entitled to any injunction.

It is a settled rule of law that the parties would be bound by their pleadings and must prosecute their case on the basis of the pleadings. Divergence from pleadings without amending the same is neither permissible nor proper. It is a fact that in the plaint it is not stated as to against whom the petitioner was claiming the adverse possession. The pre-requisite of claiming adverse possession is admitted ownership of another person. The petitioner has, thus, pleaded a case which lacks and has inherent defects in relation to ingredient of founding the claim of the present kind. Learned counsel for the petitioner did make an attempt to qualify the pleadings by making it a case simplicitor for possession but this effort appears to be not well founded. A simplicitor possession would obviously have to describe as to how the petitioner came in possession of the suit property. If the respondents are believed, then they have to be treated as lessees and a lessee can hardly claim adverse possession against his lessor. The learned Appellate Court, thus, correctly, held as under:-

"His case is rather that Gram Panchayat is not owner of the suit land. It never leased out the suit land to him. He never paid Batai to Gram Panchayat. He is in possession of the suit land for the last 30 years. His possession is open, hostile and continuous and he has become owner of the suit land. Against whom he has matured his adverse possession, is not understandable when he does not admit Gram Panchayat as owner of the suit land. So, on the basis of wrong Khasra Girdawari entries which show the possession of the plaintiff-respondent on the suit land, he cannot claim injunction."

In the case of Teji (supra) it was clarified by the Court that once a person was inducted as a lessee, would not be able to substantiate his claim for adverse possession. For an equitable protection like injunction, the person in possession must have a legitimate and legal right to be in possession of the property. He cannot frustrate the very settled principles of law and then claim relief in equity. Equity must come to the aid of law. The present petitioner cannot draw any benefit or advantage from the case of Walter Louis Franklin (supra) as the facts of that case were totally different.

For the reasons afore-stated I am unable to find any error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. Consequently, the petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. However, any observations made in this order would be of no consequence in the trial of the case and are without prejudice to the rights of the parties.