IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.1986 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision:26.11.2013

Mithu Ram and others ....Appellants

Versus

Lal Singh ....Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

• 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?
• 2. To be referred to reporters or not?
• 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
• Present:- Mr. S.K.Aneja, Advocate for the appellants.

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL)

The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from illegally dispossessing him from the suit land fully detailed in the head note of the plaint, avering that he was in cultivating possession of the suit land as tenant "Gair Marusi" under the Provincial Government for the last more than 30 years and the defendant/appellants had no concern either with the ownership or with the possession of the suit land and were bent upon illegally and forcibly dispossessing him.

Upon notice, the appellants appeared and resisted the claim of the plaintiff-respondent by filing written statement rasing

various objections. On merits, it was submitted that the appellant-Jupa Ram was in cultivating possession of the land in dispute since 1965. Plaintiff-respondent has got changed the Khasra Girdawri entries of the land in his name without any notice to him and other appellants. As per the instructions of the revenue authorities the Khasra Girdawri entries could not be corrected relating to the area in dispute and thus, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

• 1. Whether plaintiff is in cultivating possession of suit property as tenant Gair Marusi as alleged? OPP
• 2. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file this suit? OPD
• 3. Whether plaintiff concealed material facts from the Court, if so to what effect? OPD
• 4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for? OPP
• 5. Relief.

Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims.

After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to seek injunction qua land comprising in Rect. No.6 Killa No.18 and 23. However, the appellants could not point out any defect or show any right, title or interest in the land comprising in Rect. No.47 Killa No.3 (8-0), qua which entries in the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawri

were in favour of the plaintiff-respondent since long. Thus, it was held that plaintiff-respondent was entitled to restrain the defendant/respondent from interfering in his possession over the suit land comprising in Rect.No.47 Killa No.3(8-0), as detailed in the head note of the plaint. The remaining relief qua the land comprising in Rect. No.6 Killa No.8 and 23 was declined. Thus, partly decreeing the suit, the appellants were restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiff/respondent over the suit land comprised in Rect.No.47 Killa No.3(8-0).

Defendant-appellants did not challenge the aforesaid findings of the trial Court.

However, aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 23.02.2013 and suit of the plaintiff/respondent was decreed in toto holding that plaintiff respondent was successful in establishing his possession over the suit land.

Aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, the defendant/appellants have filed the instant appeal submitting that the following substantial questions of law arises in this appeal:-

• i) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees of Courts below are result of misreading and mis-appreciation of law and evidence?
• ii) Whether the lower appellate Court being final

Court of fact ought to have dealt with each and every aspect/pleadings of the appellant while setting aside the findings of trial Court, which has not been done in this case?

• iii) Whether the judgments and decrees of Courts below are erroneous, perverse and not substantial in the eyes of law?
• iv) Whether the change in khasra girdwari without notice to the appellants is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of appellants?
• v) Whether the plaintiff-respondent has failed to prove himself to be in possession of suit land, if not, whether injunction can be granted in his favour?
• vi) Whether the appellate Court below has ignored the material evidence?
• vii) Whether the appellate Court below has failed to refer to the relevant pleadings and evidence on record while passing the impugned judgment and decree?

In support of his case, counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that stray entries in Khasra Girdwri which are in conflict with the earlier entries are to be ignored as change in entries in violation of standing instructions of Financial Commissioner are null and void. According to the counsel, since in the instant case, entries in the revenue record in the year 1972 are in favour of the appellants and there is nothing on record to show as to how the change in possession took place, the subsequent entries showing the possession of the plaintiff/respondent over the suit land are to be ignored. Moreover, change has been effected in the Khasra Girdawri without notice to parties i.e. the person in whose favour earlier

entries were recorded and against whom the entries were changed. According to the appellants, no notice was given to them before getting the change in revenue record in favour of the appellants. Hence the substantial questions of law arise in this appeal.

A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that appellants' name have been shown in a part of the suit land in Khasra Girdawri for the years from 1969 to1972

However, thereafter cultivation has been changed in the name of Lal Singh who has been shown in possession since 1973 onwards. Thus, it is not in dispute that plaintiff-respondent is in established possession since long, whereas appellants have been shown to be in possession only upto year 1972.

At this stage, Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, be noticed which reads thus:-

"45. Suit for declaratory decree by person aggrieved by an entry in a record. If any person considers himself aggrieved as to any right of which he is in the possession by an entry in a record-ofrights or in an annual record, he may institute a suit for a declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.

From a bare reading of this Section, it is clear that anybody aggrieved by the entries of the revenue record of rights is to file suit for declaration.

It may further be noticed that it is not in dispute that ownership of the property in dispute is of the Provincial Government. Once that is so, plaintiff-respondent who is found to be in possession has a right to protect his possession against the whole world except the true owner. Thus, the appellants, who are not the owners of the suit property, cannot contest relief claimed by the plaintiff-respondent as he has been found to be in long standing possession of the suit property under the Provincial Government.

Possession of the plaintiff-respondent has been proved from continuous Jamabandis. The aforesaid finding is sought to be challenged on the basis of entry in favour of the appellants in the year 1972. In the instant case, appellants have never challenged entries in the revenue record by filing a suit under Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 as noticed above and thus, presumption of truth is attached in favour of the plaintiff-respondent with regard to his possession.

Thus, this Court finds no merit in this appeal.

No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal.

Dismissed

savita JUDGE

November 26, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)