Reshmo Devi and Others vs Ram Kumar

Sabina, J.—Plaintiff - Ram Kumar had filed a suit for possession. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri vide judgment and decree dated 5.8.2003 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by District Judge, Yamuna Nagar vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants.

The facts of the case as noticed by the learned District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:

The facts leading to the suit are that the land measuring 32 kanals comprised in rectangle No. ll0, Killa No. 19.20, 21, 22 situated at village Gumthala and detailed in the heading of the plaint was previously owned by Central Government from whom it was purchased in open auction on 30.3.1990 for a sum of Rs. 28,000/- by the plaintiff, who was delivered the actual physical possession of this land on 1.8.1990, as per report Roznamcha (daily diary) No. 407. The plaintiff paid the total sale price of the said land to the government in installments and thereafter the sale deed on this land was executed in his favour. After taking possession of the suit land, the plaintiff started cultivating it. But he was forcibly dispossessed from this land about 15 days prior to the institution of the suit by Surjit Singh appellant (hereafter referred to as defendant No. 1) and Baldev Raj Patwari/ proforma respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 2) with the help of some gunda elements. The plaintiff then obtained the copies of revenue record from which he came to know that since Rabi 1994 defendant No. 1 has been shown in possession of the suit land in the revenue record and it was done by defendant No. 2, who is a Patwari and real brother of defendant No. l. Since the defendants failed to get the revenue entries corrected in favour of the plaintiff in spite of his request, the latter filed a suit for possession of the suit land on the basis of his title. He also sought direction for payment of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff for use of the suit land from the date of suit till the restoration of possession.

The defendants in their joint written statement raised preliminary objections to the effect that the suit was not maintainable in the present form, that the plaintiff was estopped from filing the suit as the sale price of Rs. 28,000/- was paid by defendant No. 1 Surjit Singh because the plaintiff was unable to pay the installments of sale price and he had promised to transfer the land in favour of the defendants after payment of full sale price that the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, that no sale deed of the suit land was executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff, and that the suit was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties.

On merits, it was pleaded that the plaintiff paid one installment towards the sale price of the suit land and the remaining installments were paid by defendant No. 1 and till date the sale deed of this land has not been executed in the office of Sub Registrar, Radaur and the plaintiff had handed over the possession of the suit land to defendant No. 1 with effect from 1.8.1990 and answering defendant No. 1 made this land fit for cultivation after spending a huge amount of Rs. 50,000/- thereon and he also installed a tubewell of electricity in this land. The answering defendants further pleaded that it is defendant No. 1 who is owner in possession of the suit land and the plaintiff never remained in possession thereof and he is not entitled to possession of this land on the basis of the alleged title.

On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff being the owner is entitled for possession of suit land? OPP

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Rs. 5000/- per acre per year for use of the suit land from the defendants from the days of filing of suit till the restoration of the possession? OPP

(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

(4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit? OPD

(5) Whether the suit has not been properly valued? OPD

(6) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties? OPD

(7) Relief.

After hearing learned Counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession of the agricultural land in dispute. The land in dispute was purchased by the plaintiff from Rehabilitation Department in an open auction held on 30.3.1990. Sale was confirmed in favour of the plaintiff by Settlement Commissioner on 16.7.1990 and a certificate in this regard was issued in favour of the plaintiff. The possession of the land was delivered to the plaintiff on 1.8.1990. As per the entries in the khasra Girdawari and jamabandi for the year 1990-91, plaintiff was described to be in possession of the land in dispute. However, in Rabi-1994, defendant No. 1 Surjit Singh had been recorded to be in possession of the suit land. The case of the plaintiff is that he was dispossessed from the suit land by the defendants before filing of the suit. The case of defendant No. 1 on the other hand, is that the plaintiff had only paid first installment towards the suit land, thereafter, he had paid the balance sale consideration. However, since the plaintiff had purchased the suit land in an open auction and a certificate was issued regarding the same in his favour, the plea of defendant No. 1 that, in fact, suit land had been purchased by him, has been rightly discarded by the courts below. Suit of the plaintiff had been rightly decreed for possession as he being owner of the suit land was entitled to get the possession of the suit land. Defendant No. 1 had remained in possession of the suit land during the pendency of the suit and was, thus, liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff for use and occupation of the suit land. Both the Courts below had, thus, rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.