Lachhman Singh & ors. vs Rachna

N.C. Jain, J.

This judgment of mine would dispose of RSA Nos. 1753, 1754 and 1755 of 1980 as common questions of facts and law are involved in all the appeals. The counsel for the parties are agreed that the facts of the case may be picked up from Regular Second Appeal No. 1753 of 1980 which has been filed by defendantappellants against Rachna plaintiffs respondent.

The facts of the case in short are that the plaintiff Rachna filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiff on the land which is comprised in Khewat/Khatoni No. 68/153, Khasra No. 796 measuring 1 bigha 4 biswas situated in village Pathreri Jattan, Tehsil and District Ropar as per Jamabandi for the year 197576. The plaintiff has averred that he is owner in possession of the suit land as he has inherited the same from his father Rura and from his uncle Chanan Singh which in turn was inherited by them from their forefathers. It was the case of the plaintiff that the land in dispute has continued to remain in possession of the plaintiff through his ancestors for a very long time. The defendants have alleged to have issued notice under the Punjab Tenancy Act to the ancestors of the plaintiff to vacate the disputed land compelling their forefathers to file an application before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ropar in which the legality of the notice was challenged. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade passed a decree on 31.3.1928 holding that the ancestors of the plaintiff could not be evicted as they were occupancy tenants. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the land in disputed was cultivated by their forefathers as occupancy tenants and they became owners in the year 1953. After 1953, the land in dispute was cultivated by them as owners. The defendants all the times had been seeing the plaintiff in cultivating possession and now they were estopped from denying the ownership as well as possession of the plaintiff. The defendants in defence averred that they were the owners in possession of the land. The relevant pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues :

(1) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land ? OPP.

(2) If issue No. 1 is proved whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for ? OPP.

(3) Relief.

The trial Court found issue No. 1 partly in favour of the plaintiff and partly against him. It was found under issue No. 1 that the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed land but as trespasser. Under issue No. 2, it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to protect his possession but as a trespasser. In appeal before the first Appellate Court the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been reversed and the plaintiff has been held to be the owner of the disputed land. This is how the defendants have come up in second appeal before this Court.

Mr. D.S. Chahal, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the Assistant Collector has ordered the correction of Khasra Girdawari on 3.5.1980 and, therefor, his clients have been found to be in possession of the disputed land. It has been argued that since the plaintiff is not in possession of the disputed land, according to the corrected Khasra Girdawari, he is neither entitled to the declaration of the ownership nor can he be declared to be in possession of the disputed land. The argument is unacceptable. Both the Courts below have found that the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed land through his ancestors. The finding recorded by the Civil Court cannot be negatived by the correction of Khasra Girdawaris. A perusal of the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, which has been sought to be attached as a piece of additional evidence clearly shows that the application for correction of Khasra Girdawari pertained to Rabbi crop of the year 1978 whereas the plaintiff has been shown to be in possession of the disputed land through his ancestors for a pretty long time spreading over several decades. The Jamabandi for the year 192526 Ex. P5 clearly points out that the plaintiff is holding the land as occupancy tenant, besides entries in the Jamabandi for the year 196162 Ex. P2, entries in the Jamabandi for the year 196566 Ex. P3, entries in the Jamabandi for the year 197071 Ex. P4, entries in the Jamabandi for the year 197576 Ex. P6, entries in Khasra Girdawari for the year 1974 to 1976 Ex. P7 and several other Khasra Girdawaris. All these entries clearly establish that the suit land was in possession of the plaintiff and his ancestors as owners. In Column No. 9 of the Jamabandi, the entries are ''Bila Lagan Bewaja Jabran''. Moreover the appellate Court has relied upon the order dated 31.3.1928 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ropar holding the ancestors of the plaintiff to be occupancy tenants. On the coming into force of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act) the plaintiff became owner. The appellate Court having relied upon the provisions contained in the Act and entries in revenue documents comprised of Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris, no interference in second appeal is called for simply because the Khasra Girdawari of Rabi 1978 has been corrected in the name of the defendants. The Revenue Officer could only order correction in the Khasra Girdawari entries and Jamabandi entries in favour of plaintiff could not be ordered to be corrected. Presumption of truth has been attached to the entries in the Jamabandi which has not been rebutted. This being the factual position, in view of the entries in the revenue records, the appellate Court was perfectly justified in applying the provisions of the Act, in order to hold the plaintiff to be the owner of the disputed land. Therefore, this Court has got no hesitation to uphold the findings recorded by the first appellate Court.

For the reasons recorded above, these appeals are found to be bereft of any merit and the same are consequently ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs throughout.