Veer Singh Gusain & Others vs Raghuvir Singh & Others

Sharad Sharma, J

The present Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant nos. 2 to 4 to Suit No. 145 of 2014 'Raghuvir Singh & Others vs. Amarjeet Singh & Others'. The plaintiffs (respondents herein) faced with the threat of interference being made by the defendants to the Suit, in relation to the Suit property lying in Khata No. 837 (fasli year 1399-1404) Khasra No. 2475/175, having an area 0.162 hectare situated in Mauja Markhan Grant II, Pargana Parwadoon, District Dehradun, had instituted a Suit and sought for a decree of permanent injunction on 13.05.2014. The Suit of plaintiff respondent to Second Appeal was decreed by Trial Court by judgment dated 11.04.2017. Being aggrieved against the said judgment defendant/appellant preferred an Appeal being Appeal No. 36 of 2017 'Veer Singh & Others vs. Raghuwir Singh & Others'. The same has been also dismissed by judgment dated 14.09.2018.

The case of the plaintiff (respondent) in the Suit was that the property as described herein above was allotted to them by virtue of Patta as Sankramaniya Bhumidhar, as back as in 1976, and later on by virtue of operation of law, i.e. by virtue of implications of Act No.19 of 1995, Bhumidhari rights, over the property in question stood vested with them and, accordingly, they stood recorded in Khasra and Khatoni, which was placed before the Court below by the plaintiff as exhibits Paper No. 10C1, 11C1 respectively.

The plaintiff/respondent submitted in the proceedings before Courts below that in pursuance of the entries made in the revenue records and they since having been recorded and since the entries remained unchallenged, then in that event by the implications of Section 44 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901, would fall in their favour because the said entries made in the annual register of their title once it has not been challenged a presumption of its validity and conferring of a valid title has an unflinching force in the eyes of law. Section 44 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901, is quoted hereunder:

"44. Presumption as to entries; and decisions binding on Revenue Courts- All entries in the annual register made under sub -section (3) of Section 33 shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved; and subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 40, all decisions under Sections 40, 41 and 42 shall be binding on all Revenue Courts in respect of the subject-matter in dispute; but no such entry or decision shall affect the right of any person to claim and establish in the Civil Court any interest in land which requires to be recorded in the registers prescribed by clauses (a) to (d) of Section 32."

Consequently, they i.e. plaintiff/respondent also drew the benefit from the implications of Section 57 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901, which is quoted hereunder:

"57. Presumption as to entries- All entries in the record-of-rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved ; and all decisions under this Chapter in cases of dispute shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 40, be binding on all Revenue Courts in respect of the subject-matter of such disputes ; but no such entry or decision shall affect the right of any person to claim and establish in the Civil Court any interest in person to claim and establish in the Civil Court any interest in land which requires to be recorded in the registers prescribed by Section 32."

By its implication it provides that until and unless a document to a contrary is placed by the adversary on record or the entry thus standing in favour of party, is put to contest, the same would be conferring a valid title on the person concerned, who stands recorded.

The learned Trial court framed following three issues, which are given hereunder:

"1- D;k oknhx.k iz"uxr lEifRr ds Lokeh rFkk dkfct gS\

2- D;k izfroknhx.k }kjk voS/k rkSj ij oknh ds LokfeRo dh lEifRr ij gLr{ksi fd;k tk jgk gS\

3- D;k oknhx.k ekaxs x;s vuqrks'k dks izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\"

The issue which would be essential for the purposes of adjudication of the present Second Appeal would be the issue no. 1, which was with regards to the determination of the question of title and possession.

On scrutiny of both the judgments impugned in the present Second Appeal, what could be reasonably and rationally concluded is that the plaintiff by evidence on record has been able to prove that he is a bhumidhar in possession of the disputed land, the finding to the said effect being based on application of both oral and documentary evidence are concluded by finding of facts, which cannot be disturbed by Second Appellate Court because its not a case where appellant alleges to be any perversity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below.

The Trial Court has recorded a finding that defendant's case that his land adjoins the plaintiff's land was a case which otherwise as per land revenue laws cannot be accepted because the disputed land as claimed by plaintiff is lying in Khasra No. 2475/175, whereas defendant in written statement has alleged his rights over Khasra No. 2475/33, in between the two plots there are other intervening 42 Khasra numbers, hence, both the Courts concluded that plaintiff's land is situated much far from the land of defendant.

Both the Courts considering the evidence hence plaintiff to be owner in possession of property, because defendant had utterly failed to produce any document or lead any oral evidence to the contrary. Even on appreciation of Paper No. 38ga/1, which was led in evidence by defendant himself, which was the list of allotees of 1976 at S.No. 7, showed the entry of allotment made in favour of father of plaintiff Late Sukkhan.

On the other hand, the defendants came up with the case that they have got a right over the property in question because they claim their possession conferred on them based on the other lease holders rights, who were granted lease under the identical terms on the adjoining land. The learned Trial Court on considering the documentary evidence and oral testimony of the witnesses adduced by the parties while deciding the issue no. 1 has held the plaintiff to be the exclusive owner and in possession of the property in question, and in evidence to the contrary denouncing the title of the plaintiff, was contended to have been proved by the defendant. Consequently, the Suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court's judgment impugned dated 11.04.2017.

The said judgment was put to challenge by invoking Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure by the defendants, before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court too while considering the issues as framed on 13.04.2015 had recorded the concurrent finding of facts based on the appreciation of evidence on record.

Hence, after going through the records and after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants at length, this Court is of the view that none of the substantial question of law as framed in the Memorandum of Appeal are called for to be answered by this Court under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure.

Consequently, the Appeals fails and is accordingly dismissed. There would be no order as to cost.