Prem Chand and Others vs Hardip Singh and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—Appellants have filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 14.9.2001, passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, in Civil Appeal No. 87 of 1993, titled as Birbal son of Labha alias Sadhu through LRs versus Sujan Singh and others, whereby judgment and decree dated 5.5.1993, passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No. 2, Hamirpur, in Civil Suit No. 114/90, titled as Sujan Singh versus Birbal and others, stands affirmed. Sujan Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against predecessor-in-interest of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the contesting defendant) and two others, claiming to be in joint possession of the suit land. Plaintiff claimed to be in possession over the suit land.

Defendant contested the suit on the ground that with the enactment of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, he had become owner and in any event, by way of adverse possession, which was hostile to the knowledge of the plaintiff, he had perfected his title and become owner of the suit land.

Based on the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues:

Whether the plaintiff is in joint possession of the suit land as alleged?

OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

OPP

Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged?

OPD

Whether the suit is time barred?

OPD

Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?

OPD

Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit?

OPD

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

OPD

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

OPD

Relief.

Trial Court decreed the suit in the following terms:

In view of my findings on the aforesaid issues, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and accordingly I pass a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants to the effect that the defendants are restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the possession of the plaintiff and others co-owners of the land comprised in khata No. 18 min, khatoni No. 19 min, khasra No. 157/1 measuring 2K-2M as specified by tatima in the attached Aks Shajra Kistwar of khasra No. 157 as per jamabandi for the year 1987-88 situated in village Gagal, Mouza Jalari, Tehsil Nadaun, Distt. Hamirpur, H.P. with costs of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared and file after completion be consigned to the record room.

In the appeal filed by the contesting defendant, the lower appellate Court affirmed the findings of fact and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:

Whether the findings of the Courts below are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record, particularly for want of taking into account the revenue entries which carry the presumption of truth?

Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that no question, much less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the present appeal.

Noticeably, parties have been litigating since the year 1990 and all litigations must come to an end at some stage.

In am of the considered view that findings returned by the Courts below cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material placed on record by the parties.

In support of the appeal, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants has invited my attention to the fact that possession is still with the contesting defendant and as such suit is not maintainable. Also, though mutation in favour of the plaintiff was entered but not attested.

To rebut the same, Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel for the respondents, has invited my attention to the order dated 15.5.1977 passed by the Authority under the provisions of the H.P. Land Revenue Act.

Order dated 15.5.1997 (Ex. P-2) is passed by the Land Reforms Officer, Hamirpur, in favour of the plaintiff. Simply because there is no attestation of the mutation, that fact by itself would not defeat conferment of title by virtue of statutory provisions. The order passed by the Authority is so reflected in the subsequent revenue record and also parties have acted thereupon. Lower appellate Court rightly appreciated statement (Ex. PA) made by the contesting defendant Birbal, indicating relinquishment of his title over the land in question. Entries (Ex. DA and DB), showing the contesting defendant to be in possession of the suit land stand contradicted by the record of the Land Reforms Officer as also other revenue record. It is a settled position of law that mere entries in the jamabandi would not confer any title on a person. (See: State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Keshav Ram and others, and Corporation of the City of Bangalore Vs. M. Papaiah and Another,

Courts below, based on the testimony of Sujan Singh (PW-1), Vijay Kumar (PW-2) and Nirmal Singh (PW-3), have rightly determined the plaintiff''s possession over the suit land and repelled the defendant''s plea with regard to the same, on the basis of evidence so led by the parties.

The contesting defendant had abandoned his claim of tenancy over the suit land, which stood allotted to the plaintiff. Hence, defendant''s plea of automatic vestment of title over the suit land by virtue of the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act was rightly rejected by the Courts below. As such, it cannot be held that findings returned by the Courts below are illegal, perverse and erroneous, warranting interference by this Court. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly.

For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed and disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.