Chandu v. Gopi

IN T

Whether only oper Pronounced or the Chandu (deceas Gopi (deceased)

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Ms

For

Mr

Mr

Res

vid MANDEEP PA

1.

plaintiff against Trial Court, vid plaintiff for pos decree dated 07 Brief Facts

2.

agricultural land Village Andhop THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re

Pro

Up rative part of the judgment is e full judgment is pronounced:

ed) through LRs

VERSUS ) through LRs

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Sr. Advo s. Nikita Goel and Mr. Daanish M r LRs of the appellant. r. Aman Arora, Advocate and r. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for r spondents No.1(ii) and 1 (iii) pro de order dated 23.09.2025 -.-

ANNU, J. e present Regular Second Appe t the concurrent findings of the de judgment and decree dated 18 session and the learned Lower A .04.1995, upheld the said dismis e case set up by the plaintiff is d comprised in Khewat No.160 p, Tehsil Hathin, District Farida

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-1945-1995 (O&M) served on:-07.11.2025 onounced on:- 01.12.2025 ploaded on:-02.12.2025 operative part/full judgment

....Appellant

....Respondent DEEP PANNU cate assisted by Mahajan, Advocates respondent No.1(i) oceeded against ex-parte eal has been filed by the appella Courts below, whereby the learn

8.10.1993, dismissed the suit of Appellate Court, vide judgment sal. s that he had become owner of 0 situated in the revenue estate abad by acquiring occupancy rig

- ant– ned e of

therein, and tha licencee under h plaintiff termina possession of th of the suit.

3.

De written statemen suit was not ma pleaded that the present suit. The for more than th alternative, he se

4.

pleas raised by t

5.

On

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Bot respective stand khasra girdawar at the defendants were in permis him. It was pleaded that after a ated the licence of the defenda he suit land, but the defendants f fendant No.1 was proceeded nt, broadly denied the plaintiff's aintainable as the plaintiff had n e plaintiff was estopped by his o e defendant asserted that he had hirty years as a mortgagee and ha et up a plea of ownership by adv e plaintiff, in his replication, r the defendant. n the basis of the rival pleadings f Whether the plaintiff is owne Whether the defendants are licencees under the plaintiff, Whether the suit is not maint Whether the plaintiff is esto from filing the present suit? O Relief. th sides led oral and documen ds, which included revenue reco ris, and an order of the Assistant

ssive possession of the suit land acquiring the occupancy rights, ants and required them to deli failed to do so, leading to the fil ex parte. Defendant No.2, in s assertions and contended that o locus standi to file it, and furt own act and conduct from filing d been in possession of the suit l ad become owner of the land, in verse possession. reiterated his case and denied following issues were framed er of the suit land? OPP e in possession of the suit land and if so, to what effect? OPP tainable in the present form? OP opped by his own act and cond OPD ntary evidence in support of th ords, jamabandis of various ye Collector Grade I.

- d as iver ling his ther d as D duct heir ars,

Findings of the

7.

evidence, conclu land as the entr their predecesso whereas the pl presumption of plaintiff, includi of occupancy rig thus insufficient mortgaged his possession for accepted, makin that they were li found to be in l and the plaintiff entries, the sui dismissal. Findings of the

8.

evidence, uphel spanning sever predecessors as mortgage create mortgage within e Trial Court e Trial Court, upon apprecia uded that the plaintiff failed to e ries in the revenue record consi ors as Gair Morusi Doen (mortga laintiff had not produced any truth attached to these entries. ing the order Ex.P3 and decree E ghts, were held inconsistent with t to prove ownership, especially tenancy rights prior to such more than 30 years without ng the defendants owners by pres icencees under the plaintiff was lawful possession as sub-tenant f having neither redeemed the m it was held not maintainable e Lower Appellate Court e Lower Appellate Court, upon a ld the dismissal of the suit by ral decades consistently dep s Gair Morusi Doen (mortgage ed by the plaintiff himself, and th n the prescribed period, thereby

ating the oral and document establish his ownership over the istently showed the defendants agees with possession) and tena y credible evidence rebutting The documents relied upon by Ex.P4 regarding alleged acquisit h long-standing revenue entries y when the plaintiff had admitte orders. Further, the defendan redemption of the mortgage w scription, and consequently the p rejected. Since the defendants w ts/mortgagees and not as licence mortgage nor challenged the reven and devoid of merit, leading a thorough re-appraisal of the en y holding that the revenue rec picted the defendants and th ees with possession) under an o hat the plaintiff never redeemed t allowing the defendants to mat

- tary suit nts, tion edly nts' was plea were ees, nue g to ntire cord heir oral this

their possession reliance on an occupancy right incapable of ext tenants. It furth licencees was documentary ev was ever establi reasoning, found while endorsing recover possessi

9.

Ag plaintiff has fil respondent No. parte vide order Submissions of

10.

failed to appreci of the Punjab T that this position decree relied up were declared, could not claim The appellant fu as licencees und n into ownership by prescriptio n ex parte decree and orders ts to be wholly inconsistent with tinguishing the defendants' subsi her held that the plaintiff's plea misconceived, ill-founded, vidence, as no tenancy or permis ished. Consequently, the appella d no merit in any of the challeng g the conclusion that the plaintif ion of the suit land. grieved by the concurrent fin ed the present regular second 1(i). Respondents No.1(ii) and r dated 23.09.2025. f learned counsel for the appell e learned counsel for the appel iate that the plaintiff had acquire Tenancy Act, 1887 and thereby b n stood recognised by the order pon by the plaintiff. It was urge the earlier revenue entries cou to have acquired ownership by urther submitted that the posses der the plaintiff, and after term

on. The Court found the plainti regarding alleged acquisition h long-standing revenue entries isting rights as mortgagees and s a that the defendants were mer and contrary to overwhelm ssive possession under the plain ate Court affirmed the Trial Cou ges raised, and dismissed the app ff had no subsisting title or righ ndings of the Courts below, appeal, which is contested by d 1(iii) were proceeded against lant llant argued that the Courts bel ed occupancy rights under Sectio became owner of the suit land, r of the Assistant Collector and ed that once such occupancy rig uld not prevail and the defenda adverse possession or prescripti sion of defendants was permissi mination of this licence the plain

- ff's of sub-rely ming ntiff urt's peal ht to ex low on 8 ghts ants ion. ive,

was entitled to r Full Bench judg Others 2008(1) fixed period of r decades, that a m and that the rig remains in poss defendants that unsustainable. Submissions of

11.

On submitting that defendants as G plaintiff had nev rebutting the pr argued for the r was inconsisten defendants exte challenged those further contende rights of person the plaintiff cou as mortgagees respondents, th plaintiff never e recover possession. Reliance wa gment of this Court in Ram Kis R.C.R (Civil) 334, asserting tha redemption does not become irre mortgagee never becomes owner ght of redemption subsists rega session. On this basis, the appel t their long possession matur f learned counsel for responden n the other hand, the responden the revenue entries for several Gair Morusi Doen or mortgag ver redeemed the alleged oral m esumption of correctness attach respondents that the plaintiff's c nt with the revenue record, bec ended over more than thirty y e entries nor adduced any cogen ed that the decree obtained by th ns who were recorded in possessi uld not treat them as licencees w s/sub-tenants in continuous, erefore supported the concurre established ownership or entitlem

as placed by the appellant upon shan and Others v. Sheo Ram a at usufructuary mortgage withou edeemable even with the passage r by prescription in such a situati ardless of how long the mortga llant contended that the plea of red into ownership, was lega nt No.1(i) nt No.1(i) opposed the appeal decades consistently recorded gees with possession, and that mortgage nor produced any evide hed to the jamabandi entries. It w claim of acquiring occupancy rig cause the entries in favour of years and the plaintiff had neit nt evidence to displace them. It w he plaintiff could not extinguish ion under the revenue law, and t when the record itself showed th uninterrupted possession. T ent findings and asserted that ment to possession.

- ut a e of ion, agee ally by nce was ghts ther was that

Findings

12.

Hav the Courts below the concurrent c right to recover defendants and possession, and rebutted by the show that any m stage licencees demonstrate uni which the plaint the plaintiff doe were not shown The findings of based on prope contrary to law.

13.

appellant, is dis with the concep does not becom does not becom is the admitted limitation for re enforceability o ving considered the record, the i w and the submissions of couns conclusion that the plaintiff has r possession. The jamabandi en d their predecessors as Gair M d these entries carry a presump plaintiff. No documentary or o mortgage was ever redeemed, o s under the plaintiff. On th interrupted possession of the def tiff has neither explained nor cha es not override or negate these en n to have been parties to the proc f the trial court, as affirmed by er appreciation of evidence an

e judgment in Ram Kishan's stinguishable on the facts of the pt that usufructuary mortgage wi me irredeemable by mere passag e owner by prescription. Howev existence of a valid usufructu edemption. In the present matter, f the right of redemption under

impugned judgments and decrees sel, this Court finds no infirmity failed to establish ownership or ntries for multiple years record Morusi mortgagees/sub-tenants ption of truth which has not b oral evidence has been produced or that the defendants were at he contrary, the revenue entr fendants for more than thirty ye allenged. The decree relied upon ntries, particularly as the defenda ceedings culminating in that decr the lower appellate court, are t nd cannot be termed perverse case (supra), relied upon by present case. That judgment de ithout a fixed period of redempt ge of time and that the mortga ver, the foundation of that judgm uary mortgage and the question , the essential controversy is not a subsisting mortgage, but whet

- s of y in in een d to any ries ars, n by ants ree. thus e or eals tion agee ment n of

the plaintiff has the defendants years stand disp the existence or the Full Bench. has not challen orders which, o reflected in the case (supra) do and evidentiary

14.

Con below that the p to possession, an

15.

Pen

December 01, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh s proved ownership at all, and w as Gair Morusi mortgagees wi placed by any legal or factual ma r terms of any mortgage so as to . More importantly, the plaintif nged the longstanding revenue on their face, do not unsettle jamabandis. Therefore, the prin o not assist the appellant and ca conclusions reached by the cour nsequently, this Court concurs plaintiff has not discharged the bu nd the present appeal is dismisse nding application(s), if any, also

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

whether the revenue entries show ith possession for more than th aterial. The plaintiff has not prov o bring the case within the ratio ff has not redeemed any mortga entries, and has relied instead e the factual position consisten nciples laid down in Ram Kisha annot be applied to alter the fact rts below. with the view taken by the Cou urden of proving title or entitlem ed being devoid of merit. stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU)

JUDGE ing o.

- wing hirty ved o of age, on ntly an's tual urts