Mahender Singh and Another vs Gram Panchayat Tigrana and Others

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 27.11.2003 and 14.9.2006 passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants for permanent injunction has been ordered to be dismissed.

The plaintiffs claimed to be in peaceful possession over the land measuring 80 Kanans and 40 kanals respectively situated in village Tigri. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs cultivated their crops and vegetables on the disputed land and the defendants were threatening to destroy the sown crops and to take forcible possession.

On notice, the suit was contested wherein a plea was taken that the plaintiff had no locus standi or cause of action to file the present suit. The suit was said to be bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.

On merits, it was pleaded by the defendants that defendants were in possession of the suit land through their lease holders Sahdev Singh son of Ishwar and Harpal son of Bharat Singh. It was claimed that the suit had been filed by the plaintiffs by taking advantage of the wrong entries in the revenue record.

On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court was pleased to frame the following issues:

Whether the plaintiffs as of lessee gair marusi are in actual cultivating possession of the disputed land? OPP

If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of injunction, as prayed for? OPP

Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD

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

Relief.

However, additional issue No. 5-A was framed on 28.3.2003:

5-A. Whether the civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD

On issues No. 1 & 2, the learned trial Court was pleased to hold that the plaintiff failed to prove that they were tenant over the suit land and held to be trespassers. The learned trial Court further held that the suit land was property of Gram Panchayat and, therefore, being a public property no protection could be granted to the plaintiffs to continue their unauthorized possession over the public property.

Issues No. 3, 4, 5 & 5-A were not pressed. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.

The plaintiff-appellants preferred an appeal. The appeal also stands dismissed.

In the appeal, the learned lower appellate Court observed that the plaintiff was in fact given the land on lease in open auction by the Gram Panchayat and after expiry of the lease period they failed to hand back the possession of the land. The plaintiffs were legally bound to hand back the possession of the suit land after expiry of the lease period, thus, dismissed the suit.

The learned Counsel for the appellants contends that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law for consideration by this Court:

Whether the judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below are outcome of misreading of documentary evidence by way of revenue re cord placed on record?

The learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the revenue record proved on record showed that the Gram Panchayat was owner of village Tigrana Tehsil and District Bhiwani whereas the plaintiffs were in possession of the land falling in the revenue estate of village Tigri and, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Courts below holding the Gram Panchayat to be owner or possession of the appellant being unauthorized, is perverse and, therefore, liable to be set aside.

On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants. It may be noticed that by way of documentary evidence it has been proved on record that the plaintiff appellant had taken the property in dispute in auction from the Gram Panchayat and thereafter they continued to be in unauthorized possession thereof. The plaintiffs had also failed to prove on record any receipt or lease deed to show their possession to be under any other true owners as was claimed. The learned lower appellate Court, thus, was right in holding that it was not open to the plaintiffs appellant to deny the title of their lessor and continue in possession.

The substantial question of law, as raised, deserves to be answered against the appellant-plaintiffs.

No merit.

Dismissed.