Harjit Ram Andors v. Balkar Singh

IN T

Harjit Ram and Balkar Singh an

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

appellants/plaint respondents/def and decree dated the appeal was the learned trial Brief Facts

2.

for grant of pe forcibly in his p marlas, as detail 1984–85, excep THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re Da Others

VERSUS nd Another

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. G.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the a r. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate with r. Aryaman Thakur, Advocate for -.-

ANNU, J. e present Regular Second A tiffs Harjit Ram and others, fendants Balkar Singh and Majh d 22.04.2000 passed by the learn allowed and the judgment and d Court was set aside. e brief facts of the case are that ermanent injunction restraining peaceful possession as tenant ov led in the headnote of the plaint pt in due course of law. It was p

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-2644-2000 (O&M) served on:-04.09.2025 ate of Decision : 09.09.2025

....Appellants

....Respondents DEEP PANNU appellants. r the respondent. Appeal has been filed by sons of Billu Ram, against hel Singh, challenging the judgm ned First Appellate Court, wher decree dated 01.03.1997 passed t the plaintiff Billu Ram filed a g the defendants from interfer er the land measuring 38 kanals t and as per Jamabandi for the y pleaded that the plaintiff had bee

- ment eby d by suit ring s 17 year

tenant on the su Devi, Savitri D Lahori Mal. Th which he had fi raised in the pre suit land from dispossession. T property, they maintained that suit land as te accordingly pray

3.

They raised pre suit land and th pleaded that the the rate of Chak executed a chak issued receipts f had remained i defendants on p portion of the su claimed on the was contended t any threat of for to avoid eviction uit land prior to the year 1965 un evi, Parsanni Devi, Parkash Wa he said landowners had once at filed a suit that was decreed ex esent suit was that the defendan the said landowners, had star The plaintiff asserted that even i had no right to eject him ex he had been in continuous, pe enant since 1965, regularly pa yed for a decree of permanent inj e defendants contested the suit eliminary objections that the pla hat they had been in settled pos ey had been paying Chakota sin kota was raised from the year kotanama in their favour for the for tubewell water charges. On m n possession only up to Rabi payment of chakota. They also uit land by two registered sale d basis of ownership, rather, they that since they were already in p rcible dispossession, and that th n on the ground of subletting.

nder the landowners, namely, Sha atti and Swaraj Devi, daughters ttempted to dispossess him, due parte in his favour. The grieva nts, claiming to have purchased rted threatening him with forci if the defendants had purchased cept in accordance with law. aceful, and legal possession of aying his share of produce, njunction. t by filing their written stateme aintiff was not in possession of ssession since 1987. It was furt nce1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90 1990–91 and that the plaintiff h e years 1989–90 and 1990–91, a merits, they alleged that the plain 1987, and thereafter inducted pleaded that they had purchase deeds, but their possession was y were in possession as lessees possession, there was no question he plaintiff had filed the suit mer

- anti s of e to ance ible He and ent. ther and had also ntiff ed a not s. It n of

4.

Rep defendants, whi

5.

On following issues

(1) ten

(2)

6.

Bot Findings of the

7.

though an issue pleadings that p asserted that he defendants relie Court held that the correction o Tehsildar dated on 03.05.1990, entries during t defendants, who subletting, the t land and had be he was disposse that the court co plication was filed by the plain le reiterating his own stand. n the pleadings of the parties, t s: whether the plaintiff is in posse nant? OPP relief. th sides led evidence. e trial Court e learned trial Court, after con e regarding possession had been possession was claimed by the e was dispossessed during the ed on a patanama dated 10.06.19 the execution of the patanama r of Khasra Girdawari, the court

04.05.1990 was passed when t which showed that the defend the pendency of the suit. From o even claimed ignorance of the trial court concluded that the pl een in possession on the date of f essed during the pendency of th ould mould the relief to meet the

ntiff denying the allegations of the learned trial Court framed ession over the land in dispute a nsidering the record, observed t n framed and it appeared from e defendants, yet the plaintiff h pendency of the suit, whereas 989 to support their possession. T remained doubtful. With respec noticed that the order of the N the suit had already been institu dants had attempted to change m the pleadings and conduct of plaintiff's capacity despite alleg laintiff had been a tenant over filing of the suit. It further held t he suit, and relying on the princi e ends of justice, it decreed the s

- as a that had ct to Naib uted ging that iple suit,

directing restora from interfering

8.

It i Ram had died a Harjit Ram, Mas Findings of the

9.

Ag defendants pref appeal, holding was whether the found that proc March 1990, m found that the p

04.05.1990, a d was merely a c made earlier. I proceedings des independent wit documentary ev possession of th to prove his pos been dispossess proceedings, bu court and dismis ation of possession to the plain g in his possession. is relevant to mention here that and was represented by his lega st Ram, Kishan and Mohinder e Lower Appellate Court grieved by the judgment and de ferred an appeal. The learned L that the suit being one for perm e plaintiff was in possession on ceedings for correction of Khas much prior to the filing of the s possession was that of the defen day after institution of the suit, b consequential step following sp It also noticed that the plainti spite notice. It was observed that tness from the village to support vidence patanama and Khasra he defendants. The Appellate Co ssession as on the date of filing o sed during pendency, he ought t ut he did not do so. It, therefore ssed the suit.

ntiff and restraining the defenda during pendency of the suit, B al representatives, namely, his s ecree of the learned trial Court, Lower Appellate Court allowed manent injunction, the only quest the date of institution of the suit ra Girdawari had been initiated suit, and on spot inspection it w dants. The correction was made but the Appellate Court held tha pot inspection and enquiry alre ff did not participate in the s t the plaintiff had not produced t his possession after 1987, wher a Girdawari entries supported ourt held that the plaintiff had fai of the suit, and further that if he h to have taken recourse to contem , reversed the judgment of the t

- ants Billu ons tion t. It d in was e on at it ady said any reas iled had mpt

10.

Fee by the appellan was given to the Submission on

11.

Lea Appellate Cour evidence having proved on recor his only source that he or his s correction of en pendency of the he could not b officials. The ju illegal and unsu Submission on

12.

On a suit for perma contended that further submitte basis of chakot correction of Kh were decided o

04.05.1990 was eling aggrieved, the present Reg nts/legal representatives of plain e respondents, who have appeare behalf of the appellants/LRs o arned counsel for the appellants rt erred in relying upon the pa g been executed on plain pape rd that the plaintiff was inducted of livelihood was agricultural i sons had surrendered possession ntries in the Khasra Girdawari in e suit would not change the legal be dispossessed on the basis of udgment of the learned Lower A stainable. behalf of the respondents/defe n the other hand, learned counsel anent injunction, the question of the plaintiff himself admitted th ed that the defendants had been ta as well as pattanama execu hasra Girdawari had been initiat on spot inspection before 03.05 only a formality. It was further

gular Second Appeal has been fi tiff Billu Ram. Notice of the R ed and contested the same. of Plaintiff has argued that the learned Low atanama, which is inadmissible er. It was submitted that it sto d as tenant on payment of batai income, and there was no evide n in 1987. It was urged that m favour of the defendants during status of the plaintiff as tenant, f wrong entries made by reven Appellate Court was thus assailed endants l for the respondents argued tha possession alone is material. It w hat he had been dispossessed. n in possession since 1987 on uted in 1989. The proceedings ed prior to the filing of the suit

5.1990, so the correction made contended that the plaintiff did

- filed RSA wer e in ood and ence mere and nue d as at in was He for and on

produce any co suit, and therefo Findings of this

13.

I h carefully examin for permanent in possession over

14.

It a the suit land til regard to posse they came into p

15.

the revenue rec disputed that pr moved an appli Girdawari entrie the filing of the recommending instituted on 0

04.05.1990. Hen in the Khasra G correction proce had been conduc

16.

the defendants a gent evidence to show his poss ore, the appellate court rightly rev s Court have heard the submissions of l ned the record. It is not in dispu njunction, and, therefore, the pla the suit property as on the date o also stands admitted on record th l the year 1987. The real contr ssion thereafter, as the defenda possession of the suit land as less e best evidence to determine p cord, particularly the entries in rior to the filing of the presen ication before the revenue autho es. Spot inspection was carried e suit, and on the basis of such correction of the entries in favo

03.05.1990, whereas the entr nce, it cannot by any stretch of Girdawari were corrected durin eedings had already been initiate cted even earlier. e corrected Khasra Girdawari e and not of the plaintiffs. Even if

session on the date of filing of versed the trial court's findings. learned counsel for the parties a ute that the suit as framed was o aintiff was required to establish of the institution of the suit. hat the plaintiff was in possession roversy between the parties is w ants have consistently pleaded t see on the basis of patanama. possession over agricultural land n the Khasra Girdawari. It is nt suit, the defendants had alrea orities for correction of the Kha out by the revenue officials bef h inspection, a report was prepa our of the defendants. The suit w ries were formally corrected imagination be said that the entr ng the pendency of the suit. T ed prior thereto, and the inspect entries thus show the possession the admissibility of the patanam

- and one his n of with that d is not ady asra fore ared was on ries tion n of

kept aside, the supported by th institution of the property.

17.

It i the best evidenc No such evidenc plaintiffs have other source to p

18.

Acc were not in po Consequently, t affirmed, and th Conclusion

19.

In t cannot be faulte of filing of the judgment and d accordingly uph stands dismissed

20.

Pen

September 09, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh documentary evidence in the f e spot inspection carried out by e suit, clearly establishes posses s a settled principle of law that ce of possession unless rebutted ce has been brought on record by failed to lead any independent prove their cultivating possession cordingly, this Court is of the co ossession of the suit property the findings recorded by the le he suit of the plaintiffs is liable to these circumstances, the findings ed. The plaintiff, having failed t e suit, the dismissal of the su decree dated 22.04.2000 of the l held, though on slightly differen d. nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

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

form of Khasra Girdawari entr the revenue authorities prior to sion of the defendants over the entries in the Khasra Girdawari by cogent and convincing mater y the plaintiffs. On the contrary, evidence from the village or a n over the land after 1987. onsidered opinion that the plaint on the date of filing of the s earned Lower Appellate Court o be dismissed. s of the lower First Appellate Co to prove the possession on the d uit was, therefore, justified. T learned Lower Appellate Court nt reasoning, and the present app stands disposed off. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o.

- ries, suit are rial. any tiffs suit. are ourt date are