Heman and others vs Tulsi Ram (Died)

J.V. Gupta, J.—The plaintiff-respondents filed the present suit for possession of agricultural land claiming themselves to be the owners of the suit land It was alleged that the defendants had cone on this land as tenants at will under them and had been paying Batai; their lease had been renewed every year under the plaintiffs and the defendants kept paying rent regularly to the plaintiffs. When they defaulted in the payment of rent from Kharif 1963 to Rabi 1964, an application u/s 14-A of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act seeking their ejectment was filed In these proceedings, the defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs and claimed themselves to be the owners of the land in suit. In the written statement it was pleaded that the defendants are the owners of the suit land and in the alternative they are the owners by adverse possession. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:--

Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit land?

Whether the suit is within time?

Whether the defendants have become owners of suit land by adverse possession?

Whether the defendants are estopped by their acts and conduct from challenging the ownership of the plaintiffs?

Relief.

The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court as it was held that the defendants were the owners of the suit land. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that in the absence of any rebutting evidence, the'' plaintiffs have been able to establish the ownership over the suit land. The other issues were also decided against the defendants Consequently the plaintiffs'' suit was decreed. Dissatisfied with the same the defendants have come up in second appeal in this Court.

Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the trial Court has given very cogent reasons in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the land in dispute. The lower appellate Court has reversed the said finding arbitrarily and without discussing the entire evidence and, therefore, the same is vitiated in second appeal. He also referred to copy of the order Exhibit D-3 passed in appeal under the proceedings u/s 14-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, wherein certain observations were made that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the defendants were the tenants on the land indispute.

After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties I do not find any merit in this appeal. The lower appellate Court after discussing the entire evidence has given a firm finding that the entries in the Jamabandi Exhibit P-1 carry a presumption of truth and they must be held to prevail in the absence of any evidence to rebut the same Admittedly in the Jamabmdi for the year 1962-63, Exhibit P-1, the plaintiffs are entered as owners of the suit laud, whereas the defendants are shown as the tenants These entries have continued till the filing of the present suit. When an effort was made on behalf of the defendants for the correction of the entries as well as for entering a mutation in their favour on the basis of some mortgage, etc, they were directed to approach the Civil Court as the old entries could not be changed by the revenue authorities. No such action was ever taken by the defendants. From the evidence of Darshan Singh and Chint Ram it has been proved that the defendants were tenants and they paid Batai to the plaintiffs. This evidence has been accepted and believed by the lower appellate Court. This being a pure finding of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal.

It was next contended that in any case if the defendants are held to be the tenants the the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree. This argument is misconceived. When the plaintiffs approached the revenue authorities under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act an objection was taken on behalf of the defendants that they are not the tenants and as a result of that, the plaintiffs were directed to file a civil suit Now in the civil suit the plea taken by the defendants in the written statement is that they are the owners and not the tenants. It is on the basis of these facts on the record that it has been found that the defendants were allowed to enter the suit land as tenants, and, therefore, they have not become owners at any stage. In view of these findings it cannot be said that the defendants can now urge that the civil court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree because they have been found to be the tenants on this land. Once the tenants deny the title of the landlord, they become, trespassers on the suit land and are, therefore, liable to eviction there from.

No other point was urged Consequently this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.