Khiyali Ram and Others vs Gita Ram and Another

Kuldip Singh, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment, decree dated 02.06.2001 passed by learned District Judge, Solan, in Civil Appeal No. 32/2000, affirming judgment, decree dated 29.03.2000 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Solan, in Civil Suit No. 62/1 of 1994.

The facts, in brief, are that Respondents had filed a suit for declaration, permanent prohibitory injunction and in alternative for possession of the suit land. The Respondents claimed themselves to be the owners in possession of the suit land, more specifically, described in the plaint as well as in the judgment of the trial Court. It has been stated that the wrong revenue entries have been incorporated at the instance of Appellants in collusion with revenue staff. The request was made to Appellants for correction of wrong revenue entries, but they flatly refused, rather the Appellants threatened to interfere in the ownership and possession of the Respondents on the suit land.

The suit was contested by Appellants by filing written statement in which preliminary objections of locus-standi, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties have been taken. On merits, it has been stated that Appellants are coming in possession of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 58, 59, 64 and 65. They have denied the ownership and possession of the Respondents. They claimed adverse possession over the suit land for the last 60 years. The Appellants denied interference in the possession of the Respondents over the suit land.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

Whether the Plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land? OPP.

Whether the revenue entries in favour of the Defendants qua the suit land are wrong as alleged ? OPP.

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction or in the alternative for possession as prayed for? OPP.

Whether the Defendants have become owner of the suit land by adverse possession? OPD.

Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.

Relief.

The issues 1 and 2 were answered in affirmative, issues 4 and 5 in negative and under issue No. 3, the Respondents were held entitled for the relief of injunction, no relief of possession was granted in view of findings on issues No. 1 and 2. The learned trial Court decreed the suit on 29.03.2000 and declared Respondents as owners in possession of the suit land. The entries showing Appellant No. 1 and predecessor-in-interest of Appellants No. 2 and 3 in possession of the suit land were held wrong, illegal. The Appellants were restrained from causing interference in the ownership and possession of the Respondents over the suit land. In appeal, learned District Judge on 02.06.2001 affirmed the judgment, decree dated 29.03.2000, hence second appeal which has been admitted on following substantial questions of law:

Whether Civil Court has jurisdiction to grant the declaration regarding the correction of revenue entries and the suit as framed was maintainable?

Whether the finding of the court below that undoubtedly the suit land was owned and possessed by Krishnia and thereafter by the Defendant are not sustainable in law and the finding that the revenue records to which presumption of truth is attached Ex. P3 to P-5 could be ignored?

Whether the Plaintiff could be granted a decree for injunction when the Defendant was not only recorded in possession but was in actual possession of the suit land?

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the Appellants that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant the declaration regarding correction of revenue entries. The suit is not maintainable. The Appellants are owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of adverse possession. The presumption of truth is attached to Ex. P-3 to Ex. P-5 and the legal position to this effect has not been appreciated by the Courts below properly. The Appellants are in possession of the suit land, therefore, they could not be injuncted. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that the two Courts below have rightly appreciated the material on record in returning the findings that the Respondents are owners in possession of the suit land. The Appellants claimed possession over the suit land. In these circumstances, the two Courts below have rightly passed decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the Appellants restraining them from interfering on the suit land. He has submitted that no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal.

The substantial question of law No. 1 is taken up first for determination. It has been contended by Learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant declaration regarding correction of revenue entries. The suit has been filed on the basis of title by the Respondents. The Courts below while determining the dispute between the parties have recorded a finding that Respondents are owners in possession of the suit land and the revenue entries showing possession of the Appellants on the suit land are wrong. The Civil Court has jurisdiction to go into the question whether Respondents are owners in possession of the suit land and once the finding has been recorded that the Respondents are owners in possession of the suit land, then consequences flowing from such declaration are that the revenue entries showing Appellants in possession of the suit land are wrong. In these circumstances, it is held that Civil Court has the jurisdiction to go into the question of ownership and possession of the suit land and regarding the correctness of revenue entries. The substantial question of law No. 1 is decided against the Appellants.

The substantial questions of law No. 2 and 3 are inter-connected, therefore, both of them are taken up together for determination. The Appellants in the written statement have projected their case that they are in adverse possession of the suit land for the last over 60 years. DW-1 Khiyali Ram in his cross-examination has stated that he got the land sold to Gita Ram from Krishnia. The suit land was owned by Krishnia which was sold by him to Gita Ram and Kamla. He and his ancestors never occupied the land of Gita Ram and Kamla Respondents unauthorizedly nor he has any intention to occupy their land. He has clearly stated that he has no right over the land of the Appellants. The statement of DW-1 Khiyali Ram completely demolishes the case of the Appellants of adverse possession over the suit land. On the contrary, DW-1 admits Respondents as owners in possession of the suit land.

The Appellants in the written statement have claimed adverse possession over the suit land which they have miserably failed to prove. Therefore, no fault can be found with the findings of the two Courts below in granting decree of permanent prohibitory injunction also in view of the stand of the Appellants. The two Courts below have rightly appreciated the material on record in decreeing the suit of the Respondents. The Appellants have failed to make out a case that the two Courts below have mis-construed and mis-interpreted the evidence on record or material evidence has been ignored in decreeing the suit. There is no merit in the appeal. The substantial questions of law No. 2 and 3 are decided against the Appellants.

In view of above discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.