Sarb Dayal Singh vs Karnail Singh

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This is defendants'' regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been affirmed thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants not to interfere and dispossess the plaintiffs from the land as detailed in the head note of the plaint otherwise than in due course of law. This claim was resisted by the defendants stating that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land as tenant and so have no right to file a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. A number of issues were framed by the trial Court, parties were permitted to adduce evidence. Plaintiffs in support of heir case placed on record documentary evidence in the nature of copies of Jamabandi as well as khasra girdawari and has appeared as his own witness. Defendants, on the other hand, too examined few witnesses but primarily relied upon the contents of sale deed dated 16.8.1988 executed by Tej Kulwant Singh through his attorney Gurnam Singh wherein he has admitted that possession has been delivered to the vendee at the spot.

On considering evidence adduced by the parties, trial Court came to the conclusion that plaintiffs are reflected in the revenue record earlier in time to the date when sale deed was executed. This was placing on reliance upon the ale deed dated 16.8.1988 held the plaintiffs to be in possession of the suit land. The Court further found no substance in the plea of defendants that an order during the pendency of suit correcting Khasra girdawari entry has been passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade dated 26.12.1990 primarily on the ground that since civil Court is seized of the matter, the Court is to examine independently of any decision taken by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade. The suit of plaintiffs was accordingly decreed.

The appellate Court too found no ground to vary or reverse the decision of the trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellants once again pressed almost identical pleas which did not find favour with the Courts below. According to the counsel, in view of correct order passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, the Courts below erred in law in holding plaintiffs to be in possession of the suit land. Otherwise too, correction of entries made in the revenue record are not only relevant but have a legal force as the same has been made after holding a deep enquiry. Besides it, clear averments made in the ale deed dated 16.8.1988 belie the assertion of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the suit land at the spot.

Having heard learned counsel for a while and on perusal of the judgments passed by the Courts below, I find the submissions to be wholly devoid of any substance. Concededly, plaintiffs were shown to be in possession of the suit land as is reflected in the copies of Khasra Girdawari/Jamabandi. There is no order of eviction against them till today. Thus, a tenant in possession is legally to be presumed to remain in possession till evicted by a Court of competent jurisdiction. It is not the case of the appellants that plaintiffs have been ordered to be evicted by any Court of competent jurisdiction. It is also not the case of appellants hat erstwhile tenants relinquished their tenancy rights in the suit property by any valid relinquishment deed. Thus, in the absence of either of the aforesaid two legal propositions, it is reasonable to infer that a tenant continues to be in occupation of the property unless evicted in due course of law. Examined in the light of aforesaid legal proposition, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court after appraising evidence is perfectly jut and legal. The findings recorded by the Courts below are not vitiated in any manner. Thus, I find no ground to interfere in the concurrent findings of the Court below. Dismissed.