Ram Sarup vs Balwant Singh

A.S. Nehra, J.

This is plaintiff''s appeal against the judgment and decree dated 1.9.1986 passed by Additional District Judge (III), Faridabad, by which the appeal filed by the plaintiffappellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 31.1.1986 was upheld.

The plaintiffappellant''s plea was that he is in possession of the suit land as a tenant under defendantsrespondents Nos. 1 to 3 for the last more than 7 years; that he had never been dispossessed from that land; and the impugned sale of that land by defendantsrespondents Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of defendantrespondent No. 4 is invalid and not binding on his possessory interest on the land in suit. It was also asserted that patta nama, executed by defendantsrespondents Nos. 1 to 3 with regard to the suit land in favour of defendantrespondent No. 5, was also not binding on the rights of the plaintiffappellant as a tenant on the suit land.

The allegation of defendantsrespondents Nos. 1 to 3 was that they had never given the suit land to the plaintiffappellant as a tenant and there was, thus, no question of his being in possession of that land as a tenant under them. The validity of the impugned saledeed and the lease deed was asserted. It was alleged that they had come to know that the plaintiffappellant had got his name entered in the revenue record in collusion with the revenue authorities.

Defendants respondents No. 4 and 5 asserted the validity of the impugned saledeed and the leasedeed in their favour respectively. Maintainability of the suit was challenged and it was alleged that the plaintiffappellant had no locus standi to file the suit.

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

(1) Whether the plaintiff is in cultivating possession of the suit land as gair maurusi tenant, as alleged ?

(2) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ?

(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ?

(4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from bringing the present suit by his acts and conduct ?

(5) Relief.

The trial Court disposed of issue No. 1 against the plaintiffappellant, holding under it that the plaintiffappellant had not been proved to be in possession of the land in suit. Findings under issues Nos. 2 and 3 were recorded against the plaintiffappellant. Issue No. 4 was disposed of against the defendantsrespondents as not pressed.

The plea of the plaintiffappellant is that the learned lower Courts have erred in law in not having placed adequate reliance upon the fact that it was the plea of none else or other than defendentsrespondents Nos. 1 to 3 themselves before the revenue Court that the plaintiffappellant was in possession of the suit land, besides, some other land. In support of the plea, attention of the Court was invited to Exhibit P1 (copy of petition filed by defendantsrespondents Nos. 1 to 3 against the plaintiff appellant before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade Palwal), Exhibit P2 (copy of statement made by Balwant Singh, defendantrespondent No. 1, in those proceedings), and Exhibit P3 (copy of the order of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade Palwal, in that case). This plea of the plaintiffappellant is too frivolous to be considered. There is no doubt that defendantsrespondents Nos. 1 to 3 did file a petition for the ejectment of the plaintiffappellant from certain land and the suit land was also stated in that petition. However, there is force in the plea on behalf of defendantsrespondents Nos. 1 to 3 that the admission by them in that case (with regard to the plaintiffappellant being in possession of the suit land also as tenant under them) was erroneous and this interference is supported by the own assertions made by the plaintiffappellant. His plea is that the land comprised in Killa No. 25/1 was given on batai to him from Rabi 1979 onwards. This plea of his was incorporated in the revenue record on the basis of Exhibit P5 (Copy of report roznamcha) vide which the change of possession was recorded by the revenue authorities. If that were so, there was no question of defendantsrespondents Nos. 1 to 3 having demanded batai for Rabi 1978 and Kharif 1978 crop also from him regarding the land in suit. That is precisely what was asked for by defendantrespondent No. 3 in Exhibit P1. There is no revenue record that stated the possession of the plaintiffappellant as a tenant of the suit land for that period. It was thus a case of erroneous assertion in Exhibit P1 and the erroneous nature of the assertion is proved by the own plea of the plaintiffappellant that the suit land was given to him in Rabi 1979.

It is further argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the finding of the learned lower Courts, that Exhibit P5 could not be relied upon as no notice of change of entry had been given to the defendantsrespondents, is not valid, as notice was required, as per Instructions of the Financial Commissioner, only if change was to be made during the period other than when the land was under crop inspection. The plea was what no such notice was required if the change was ordered at the time of crop inspection. There is no force in the argument. In the first instance, Exhibit P5 does not state that the change was ordered at the time of crop inspection. Even otherwise, there is no warrant for the proposition expounded by the plaintiffappellant that no notice was required if the change was ordered at the time of crop inspection. The Instruction of the Financial Commissioner in that behalf impose a duty on the revenue authorities to notify the proposed change to the adversely affected parties and only thereafter, the revenue authorities may proceed to pass appropriate orders. In that view of things. Exhibit P5 can not be said to be binding on the defendantsrespondents. The concurrent finding of fact given by both the Courts below is correct. As a result, this appeal filed by the plaintiffappellant is held to be devoid of merit and it is ordered to be dismissed with costs.