Shankar Dass and Others vs Smt. Kapai Devi and Others

Kuldip Singh, J.—The predecessor-in-interest of the Appellants, namely Chinti, was Plaintiff and she filed a suit for declaration, permanent prohibitory injunction and in alternative for possession of land, more specifically described in the plaint. The suit was filed against the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents. The suit was dismissed on 24.1.1986 by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Hamirpur. The appeal filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the Appellants was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur on 29.1.2000. The original Plaintiff and Defendant have died and their legal representatives have been brought on record. In this Judgment, the parties are referred to as the Plaintiff and Defendant.

The facts in brief are that Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration, permanent prohibitory injunction and in alternative for possession of the land described in the plaint. It was the case of the Plaintiff that she was tenant on the suit land and later on she became owner. The Defendant had filed an application for correction of khasra girdawari before the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Hamirpur and was threatening to interfere in possession of the Plaintiff, therefore, suit was filed.

The suit was contested by the Defendant on the ground that Plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land. The objection of maintainability of the suit was also raised in addition to objection of estoppels. It was denied that there was relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties. The Plaintiff was never inducted as tenant. The plea of limitation was also taken. It was pleaded that Defendant had purchased the suit land. The entries in the revenue record in the name of the Plaintiff were wrong, which have been corrected. The Defendant had prayed for dismissal of the suit. The Plaintiff filed replication and re-asserted her case. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

Whether the Plaintiff is in possession of the land in dispute? OPP.

Whether the Plaintiff has become owner of the land in dispute as alleged? OPP.

Whether Plaintiff is stopped from filing the suit by her act and conduct as alleged? OPD.

Whether the suit is time barred? OPD.

4-A Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to grant relief claimed in prayer ''B''? OPD.

Relief.

The issues No. 1, 2 and 3 were answered in negative, issue No. 4 and 4-A in affirmative and the suit was dismissed on 24.1.1986. In appeal, the learned District Judge upheld the Judgment, decree dated 24.1.1986 passed by the learned trial court, hence, second appeal, which has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:

Whether the Courts below have mis-read and mis-interpreted the evidence on record more specifically revenue entries and rejected the case of the Appellant- Plaintiff as set out by her?

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the two courts below have misread and misinterpreted the evidence on record, more specifically the revenue entries and both the courts have erred in rejecting the case of the Plaintiff. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has prayed for acceptance of the appeal. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that two courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts against the Appellants and their predecessor. There is no misreading or misinterpretation of the documents. There is no merit in the suit in view of statement of Plaintiff and PW 3 Mohar Singh. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has supported the impugned judgment and decree.

The case of the Plaintiff is that she was tenant on the suit land, earlier her husband Sunder was tenant on the suit land and after his death she inherited tenancy of Sunder along with his co-widow Kalan. It was also the case of the Plaintiff that she later on purchased the suit land from owner PW 3 Mohar Singh. The Plaintiff while appearing in the witness box as PW 2 has stated that Shibu her first husband was tenant on the suit, after him Sunder became tenant on the suit land which was owned by Mohar Singh. Shibu died about 30 years ago and after the death of Shibu, she married with Sunder, who continued to cultivate the land. Sunder had another wife Kalan. After the death of Sunder, the land in dispute was mutated in her favour as well as in favor of Kalan. She has also stated that Kalan had sold her share to Tikhu Defendant. She has also stated that she later on purchased the suit land from Mohar Singh.

PW 3 Mohar Singh has stated that he had transferred his ownership rights in favour of Tikhu Ram. In cross-examination, he has stated that Sunder was not his tenant nor he ever paid rent to him. He has also stated that he never sold land to Chinti. The Plaintiff has not placed on record the sale deed vide which she allegedly purchased the suit land from Mohar Singh. Plaintiff Chinti had claimed tenancy on the suit land through Sunder, but PW 3 Mohar Singh in his statement has clearly stated that Sunder was never inducted tenant by him. Thus PW 3 Mohar Singh, who was the owner of the suit land, has completely demolished the case of the Plaintiff on both counts i.e. tenancy as well as ownership.

The two courts below have rightly appreciated the material on record. The Appellants have failed to point out that two courts below have ignored some material evidence, which goes to root of the case and while considering the case of the parties, the two courts below have considered inadmissible evidence. In second appeal, re-appreciation of the evidence is not possible. The view taken by the two courts below emerges from the evidence on record. There is no merit in the appeal. The above substantial question of law is decided against the Appellant.

No other point has been urged.

The result of above discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.