Udey Ram vs Teju Ram and Others

Surinder Singh, J.—Heard and gone through the records of the Courts below.

The present Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(1) Whether both the Courts below are right in not taking into consideration the provisions of Section 45 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972.

(2) Whether the learned Courts below are right in dismissing the suit of the Appellant on the ground of limitation, especially when the limitation was to run from January, 1997 and suit was well within the period of limitation.

Precisely, the facts giving rise to the present appeal can be stated thus. The Appellant hereinafter to be called as ''the Plaintiff'' filed a suit and averred in his plaint that the suit land was in possession of Punnu Ram son of Shri Mussadi, as a tenant through his predecessor-in-interest. After the death of said Punnu Ram, Plaintiff and Khyali Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents, hereinafter to be called as ''the Defendants'' came in its possession. It is alleged that the revenue staff collusively entered the possession of Khyali Ram in the revenue record as a tenant qua the suit land, which was ultimately reflected in the Jamabandi for the year 1959-60. Khyali Ram had died and the suit land was shown to have been succeeded by his statutory heirs and they alienated it to Defendants No. 2 to 6. The Defendants objected to the possession of the Plaintiff over the suit land in the month of January, 1997. It was then he got it verified from the revenue record and came to his notice that the entries initially showing Khyali Ram in exclusive possession of the suit land ignoring the title of the Plaintiff were wrong, hence suit was filed seeking declaration with consequential relief of possession.

The suit was resisted and contested by the Defendants, raising the preliminary objection of limitation, cause of action, multifariousness, mis-joinder of parties and also questioned the locus-standi of the Plaintiff to file the suit. On merits, though the Defendants admitted that Punnu Ram was tenant of the suit land, but according to them, the Plaintiff figured nowhere, whereas the suit land was cultivated by Khyali Ram alone as a tenant and after his death, the Defendants succeeded to his estate alongwith the tenancy land. Since they happened to be the owners of the suit property, they were competent to transfer the land in favour of Defendants No. 2 to 6. Defendants maintained that entries in the revenue record are correct, as per possession on the spot, hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.

On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:

Whether the Plaintiff is the son of deceased Punnu? ...OPP

Whether the Plaintiff has succeeded to the estate of deceased Punnu along with Khyali Ram in equal share? ...OPP

Whether the Plaintiff is in possession as a tenant over the half share of late Sh. Punnu? ...OPP

Whether the suit is barred by limitation? ...OPD

Whether the Plaintiff is having No. locus standi to file the present suit? ...OPD

Whether this Court is not having jurisdiction to hear and entertain the present suit? ...OPD

Whether the suit is bad for multifariousness and non joinder of necessary parties? If so, its effect? ...OPD.

Relief.

After the complete trial and on going through the evidence of the parties, learned trial Court held that though the Plaintiff is the son of deceased Punnu, but he did not succeed tenancy rights of the suit land and further that he was also not in possession of half share of the land, as alleged. The suit was barred by limitation, therefore dismissed the suit.

The Plaintiff did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgment and decree, as such filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, which was also dismissed, hence the present appeal.

Admittedly, said Punnu was a common ancestor of the parties to the suit. In the Jamabandi for the year 1959-60, Khyali Ram was reflected as a tenant in exclusive possession of the suit land. He acquired proprietory rights and after his death, the Defendants were reflected as owners in possession in the Jamabandi for the year 1991-92. There is nothing on record to show that Udey Ram Plaintiff was at any time shown in possession of the suit land in the revenue-records. There is consistency of entries in favour of widow, daughter and son of Khyali Ram in the subsequent Jamabandies till the year 1991-92 (Ext.DW1/D). No. convincing evidence by the Plaintiff has been put-forth during the trial that he was cultivating the suit land at any time with Khyali Ram and even after his death with the Defendants. The evidence on record goes to show that for the last 40 years, he was not living in that village where the suit land was located. On the other hand, Defendants'' evidence corroborates the entries in the revenue record.

Therefore, the very fact that he was holding the suit land as a co-tenant remains unsubstantiated. Thus, learned Courts below committed No. error in appreciating the evidence on record and No. question of law, much-less the substantial questions of law arise in this case, as such, appeal merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

In view of the dismissal of the appeal, interim order of status-quo dated 5.12.2001 passed in CMP No. 929 of 2001 stands vacated.