State of Haryana vs Pardeep Kumar Verma

Arun Palli, J.—Suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.03.2006. Appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was dismissed on 23.10.2008. This is how, defendant is before this Court, in this Regular Second Appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

Plaintiff and defendant No. 2, had a common interest and the pedigree table drawn in the plaint reads as thus: -

In short, in a suit filed by the plaintiff, he prayed for a declaration that he and defendant No. 2 i.e. Ved Parkash had become the owners of suit land, as described in Para 1 of the plaint by operation of Section 3 of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (for short ''1952 Act''). A decree for injunction was also claimed restraining defendant No. 1, from causing any interference in his possession over the suit property and alienating the same in any manner. It was averred that plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were in possession as tenants of a land comprised in Khewat No. 434, Khata No. 574, Rect No. 13, Killa No. 26 measuring 1 Kanal 12 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Village Jharsetli, District Faridabad. It was also averred that plaintiff and his forefathers had been in possession of the suit land for the last more than 100 years as tenants without any obstruction and intervention under defendant No. 1 on payment of land revenue. It was maintained that Banarsi Dass died issueless and mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned in the name of Shankar Lal son of Murli Dhar bearing mutation No. 1977 on 11.11.1965, as Ram Singh son of Murli Dhar had already passed away. Shankar Lal was succeeded to by the plaintiff and defendant No. 2, vide mutation No. 2621 sanctioned on 30.10.1976, as Brij Raj Singh, his son had also died in the lifetime of Shankar Lal. Thus, the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 were tenants under defendant No. 1. As defendant No. 1, attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land, a Civil Suit bearing No. 263 of 1990, titled Pardeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana was filed against defendant No. 1. Though, defendant No. 1 admitted possession of plaintiff and defendant No. 2 over the suit property but disputed the existence of any relationship of a landlord and tenant between the parties. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 05.08.1994, by the then Senior Sub-Judge. Appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was dismissed. Proceedings initiated by defendant No. 1, against plaintiff and defendant No. 2, under Haryana Public Premises Act, 1972 (in short ''1972 Act'') culminated into an order of this Court dated 14.07.1999, and it was held that if the land that was subject matter of dispute in the said proceedings, was the same as in Civil Suit No. 263 of 1990, the proceedings under 1972 Act would be dropped. It was claimed that the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 had acquired occupancy rights and no rent was ever increased and they were never ejected. Thus, by virtue of Section 3 of 1952 Act, plaintiff and defendant No. 2 acquired title qua the suit land. Since, defendant No. 1 did not acknowledge the claim of plaintiff and defendant No. 2, thus, the suit.

In defence, it was pleaded inter-alia that plaintiff and his forefathers have been in unauthorized possession of the suit land, that is owned by the defendant No. 1. The claim of the plaintiff that he and his predecessor-in-interest were in possession for the last over 100 years, was denied. Since, vide judgment and decree dated 05.08.1994 rendered by the trial Court and decree dated 07.05.1998, passed by the Appellate Court, liberty was granted to the State to dispossess the plaintiff, proceedings under 1972 Act were initiated. The claim of the plaintiff that he and defendant No. 2 had acquired titled qua the suit property being occupancy tenants was, however, denied.

Trial Court, on consideration of the matter in issue and evidence on record, found that as per Jamabandi for the year 1961-62 (Ex.P7), Jamabandi for the year 1966-67 (Ex.P8), Jamabandi for the year 1971-72 (Ex.P9), Jamabandi for the year 1976-77 (Ex.P10), and Jamabandi for the year 1981-82 (Ex.P11), Banarsi Dass son of Bansi Dhar son of Tulsi Ram was in possession of the suit land as Gair Marussi. Jamabandi for the year 1986-87 (Ex.P12) proved that plaintiff and defendant No. 2 stepped into the shoes of Banarsi Dass. Pedigree table on record further revealed that Bansi Dhar and Murli Dhar were legal heirs of Tulsi Ram and Banarsi Dass son of Bansi Dhar died issueless, thus, the tenancy was inherited by the plaintiff and defendant No. 2, who happened to be the sons of Brij Raj Singh son of Shankar Lal son of Murli Dhar. The pedigree table on record was not rebutted by defendant No. 1, by adducing any evidence to the contrary. Therefore, apparently plaintiff and defendant No. 2 inherited the tenancy through their forefathers. Further, record of rights irresistibly showed that plaintiff and defendant No. 2 were in continuous possession of the suit land w.e.f. 1961-62 till date. Although, it was maintained by the State Government that possession of plaintiff and defendant No. 2 was wholly unauthorized but yet no evidence was brought on record to substantiate the said plea. Judgment and decree dated 05.08.1994 Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 proved the tenancy of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 qua the suit land. Accordingly, it was concluded that plaintiff and defendant No. 2 were in possession of the suit land for the last more than 30 years and had, thus, acquired rights of occupancy by virtue of Section 3 of 1952 Act and, therefore, had become owners in equal shares. Resultantly, the suit was decreed.

Being dissatisfied with the decree, defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal. First Appellate Court reviewed the matter in issue, evidence on record and on analysis thereof, found itself in concurrence with the view drawn by the trial Court and findings recorded in support thereof. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the RSA Paper Book.

Learned State counsel simply seeks to reiterate the submissions that were advanced before the Courts below and rejected after a due and comprehensive consideration. No other argument was advanced.

On a due and thoughtful consideration of the matter in issue, I am of the considered view that the instant appeal is devoid of merit and is thus, liable to be dismissed for the reasons that are being recorded hereinafter.

An analysis of the record of rights i.e. Jamabandis Ex.P7 to Ex.P11, irresistibly show that Banarsi Dass son of Bansi Dhar was in possession of the suit land as Gair Marussi. Jamabandi for the year 1986- 87 (Ex.P12), proves that plaintiff and defendant No. 2 stepped into the shoes of Banarsi Dass. Pedigree table produced by plaintiff fully substantiate this position. Particularly, when defendant No. 1 led no evidence to contradict the said positions. Thus, plaintiff and defendant No. 2 inherited the tenancy qua the suit land through their forefathers. Records reveal that mutation No. 1977 that was produced as Ex.P20 in the earlier suit, was sanctioned in favour of Shankar Lal i.e. grandfather of plaintiff on 11.11.1965. Thus, plaintiff was in possession of the suit property since the time of his forefathers or at least w.e.f. 11.11.1965. Copy of the judgment and decree dated 05.08.1994 (Ex.P1 & P2) passed by the then Senior Sub Judge, Faridabad in a Civil Suit No. 263 of 1990, filed by the plaintiff against defendant No. 1 qua the suit land, concludes that the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 were in possession of the suit property as tenant on payment of land revenue. Concededly, judgment and decree dated 05.08.1994 Ex.P1 had attained finality between the parties. Once that was so, it was rightly concluded that the findings recorded therein would operate as res judicata. As possession of the plaintiff and his forefathers over the suit land was more than 30 years old at the time of filing of the suit in the year 2004. And neither his forefathers nor he paid any rent to the State Government beyond the land revenue And being in the male line of descent that is from the time of his grandfather, by virtue of Section 5 (i) (a) of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, being reproduced hereinafter, plaintiff and defendant No. 2 acquired occupancy rights in the suit land:-

"Section 5 (1) (a)- who at the commencement of this Act has, for more than two generations in the male line of descent through a grandfather or grand uncle and for a period of not less than 20 years, been occupying land paying no rent therefore beyond the amount of the land revenue thereof and the rates and cesses for the time being chargeable thereon."

And possessory rights of plaintiff being an occupancy tenant matured into absolute ownership or title by operation of the provisions of Section 3 of 1952 Act, that reads as thus: -

"(a) all rights, title and interest (including the contingent interest, if any, recognized by any law, custom or usage for the time being in force and including the share in the Shamilat with respect to the land concerned) of the landlord in the land held under him by an occupancy tenant, shall be extinguished, and such rights, title and interest shall be deemed to vest in the occupancy tenant free from all encumbrances, if any, created by the land."

Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out as to how the conclusions arrived at by both the Courts below are either contrary to the position on record or suffered from any material illegality.

In the wake of the position as set out above, the conclusions that have concurrently been recorded by both the Courts below, there hardly exists any ground, least plausible in law, to interfere with the decree being assailed in the present appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the present appeal. Appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.