Sukhbir Sinhgh v. Raja Ram

IN T

Sukhbir Singh (

Raja Ram and O

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Nam

Vid

Mr

Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

Thi dated 22.12.199 the judgment an Class, Jagadhri decreed the suit and decree date aside that decree Brief Facts

2.

restraining the d THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re Da

since deceased) through LRs

versus Others

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for th me of respondent No.1 is deleted de order dated 15.01.1999. r. Gurdial Singh Jaswal, Advocat r. Buta Singh, Advocate for respo -.-

ANNU, J. is Regular Second Appeal arise 97 passed by the Additional Dist nd decree dated 19.04.1995 pas . Vide judgment and decree t in favour of the plaintiff Sukhb ed 22.12.1997 the learned Addi e and dismissed the suit of the pl e plaintiff Sukhbir Singh institu defendants from interfering in th JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-540-1998 (O&M) served on:-22.09.2025 ate of Decision : 23.09.2025

……Appellant

….. Respondent DEEP PANNU he appellant. d from the array of parties te with ondent Nos. 2 to 4. es out of the judgment and dec trict Judge, Jagadhri which rever ssed by the learned Sub Judge, dated 19.04.1995, the trial Co bir Singh. Vide impugned judgm itional District Judge, Jagadhri laintiff. uted a suit for permanent injunct he actual physical possession of

ts cree rsed Ist ourt ment set

plaintiff and fro measuring 7 Ka Nos.71/11 situat as per jamaband defendants from The case of the suit land from t Batai to the land was also situate have been allott had been threate to cut the crops

3.

Up the plaintiff's p was declared su by mistake had land measuring came to know ab the suit land as t

4.

Rep

5.

Fro

¶1as t

2.

¶3m cutting and removing the suge anals 11 marlas, bearing khewa ted in the revenue of Village De di for the year 1982-83. Further m taking the possession of the su plaintiff in the suit was that he w the last 15 years as tenant Gair dlord regularly. It was further all ed adjoining to the suit property ted the suit land by the State G ening the plaintiff to forcibly dis from the same. on notice, the defendants filed possession and relied upon allot urplus and allotted to them. The entered the name of the plaintif 53 kanals 12 marlas and the s bout the present suit and the plai they had sown their crops in the plication was filed by the plainti om the pleadings of the parties, f Whether the plaintiff is in cu tenant? (OPP) Whether the suit is not maint Whether the plaintiff has no er-cane and rice crops over the l at No.95, Khatauni No.155, Kha eodhar, HB No.72, Tehsil Jagad r with the prayer for restraining uit land forcibly from the plaint was in cultivating possession of r Marusi and had been paying eged that the land of the defenda and defendants, claiming that th Government from the Surplus po spossess him from the suit land their written statement and den tment/award showing that the l ey further stated that Halqa Patw ff over the suit land out of the to same fact was revealed when th intiff has no right, title or interes suit land and harvested the same ff reiterating the facts. following issues have been frame ultivating possession of the suit l tainable as alleged? (OPD) locus standi to file this suit? (OP

asra dhri, tiff. f the ants hey ool, nied wari otal hey st in e. ed:- PD)

4. A C

5.

6.

PW-2. The plain

i)

ii)

iii)

iv) Jam

v)

7.

and placed on r revenue materia to Raja Ram ( title/allotment an Findings of the

8.

oral evidence he P1–P7 consisten have not produc suit. The plaint paying batai. T Whether defendant is entitled CPC? (OPD) Relief. e plaintiff examined himself as ntiff relied principally upon follo Ex. P1: Copy of Jamabandi f Ex. P2: Khasra Girdawari fo 88), ) Ex. P3: Copy of Jamabandifo ) Ex. P4, P5, P6: Subseque mabandiup to 1992–93, Ex. P7: Copy of Khasra Gird e defendants examined DW-1 R record Ex. D1, which is the all al showing that the land in disput (and others), and which, accor nd their possession. e trial Court e learned trial court after appre eld that the entries in the Jamab ntly show plaintiff in cultivation ced any material to show that the iff had been cultivating the lan The plaintiff's possession was d to special costs under Section s PW-1 and called Ajaib Singh owing revenue documents:- for the year 1982–83, or crops (covering rabi 1983 to r or the year 1987–88, nt copies of Khasra Girdawar dawari dated 25.3.1994. Rattan Singh and DW-2 Om Prak lotment/award document and ot te was declared surplus and allot rding to defendants, demonstra eciating the revenue record and bandi and the Khasra Girdawari n and possession and the defenda ey were in actual possession prio nd for more than fifteen years thus established and the suit w

35-h as rabi ri / kash ther tted ates Ex. ants or to

decreed restrai cutting/removin Findings of the

9.

dated 22.12.199 lower appellate which, it conclu the defendants a allotment and possession. The oral testimony. evidence had no and on the pauc before it the app entries was rebu accordingly the Submissions of

10.

Fee on multiple g misdirected him conclusive proo attaching to the properly apprec by the plaintiff a document witho ining the defendants from ng his crops except by due course e lower appellate court e learned Additional District J 97, reversed the judgement and court relied inter alia upon Ex uded, show that the land had be and the defendants belonged to had paid installments and th e appellate court also noted alle Particular reliance was placed ot mentioned the alleged cuttin city of independent witnesses to pellate court concluded that the utted and that the plaintiff had trial court judgement and decree f learned counsel for the partie eling aggrieved, the appellant c rounds including that the le mself in law in treating Ex. of of dispossession and ownershi plaintiff's continuous revenue e ciate the close and contemporan as Ex.P1–P7 and erred in placing out canvassing whether defenda dispossessing the plaintiff e of law. Judge, in the impugned judgm d decree of learned trial court. T x.D1 and the state allotment entr een declared surplus and allotted 'A' category of tenants entitled herefore had become owners eged deficiencies in the plainti on the fact that the plaintiff in ng of his crop on certain occasi o support his case. On the mate e presumption in favour of reven failed to prove his possession e was set aside. es challenges the impugned judgm earned Additional District Ju D1 and the allotment entries ip so as to displace the presumpt entries. The appellate court did neous revenue documents produ g decisive reliance on the allotm ants proved continuous possessi

or ment ries d to d to in iff's his ons erial nue ment dge as not uced ment

Even if land w concerns posses continued cultiv unless the defen

11.

Lea produced best e Girdawari for th documents whic submitted that t fact establishing the suit. Learne ipso facto prov plaintiff's allege Learned counse in considering orders on object

12.

Lea D1 is a public r declared surplus suit that the resp the plaintiff's en and the oral ev appellate court revenue entries

was allotted to the defendants, ssion and not the adjudication o vation, supported by revenue e ndants prove dispossession by du arned counsel for the appellant vidence in the form of continuou he years 1982–83 through 1994 a ch attract a presumption of tru the presumption is rebuttable on g that entries are false or that the ed counsel stressed that cutting o e dispossession and that the ap ed failure to remember certain el further urged that the appellat additional material without hea tions. arned counsel for the respondent record of allotment which show s and allotted to the respondent pondents paid installments and w ntries in revenue record were b vidence of plaintiff suffers from rightly found that the presump stood rebutted. , a suit for permanent injunct of title. The plaintiff's evidence entries, suffices to maintain re ue process. t has emphasized that the plain us entries in Jamabandi and Kha and that these documents are pub uth under the revenue law. It w nly by cogent evidence of contr ere was actual dispossession prio of crop on a specific date does ppellate court wrongly equated dates with absence of possessi e court committed procedural er aring or without passing reason ts argued before this Court that ws that the land in dispute had b ts well before the institution of were thus owners in possession orne out of mistake by the patw m contradictions and that the low ption of correctness attached to

e of elief ntiff asra blic was rary r to not ion. rror ned Ex. een wari

Findings

13.

I h evidence-on-rec submissions adv

14.

It i Jamabandi attra rebuttable. The r party who reli supporting evid displace that pre possession was plaintiff produce a sequence of ye disconnected e cultivation entri these contempor So far as Ex. D of the responde existence, howe party's establish cultivation. Wha possession by th the allottee had plaintiff at all m allotment concl have considered the entire rec cord, the reasons recorded by vanced by both the learned couns is well-settled that entries in r act a presumption of correctnes relevant question for the court in es on the entries has proved ence, and whether the other par esumption by showing that the of the other party for the relev ed contemporaneous revenue en ears from 1982–83 through 1994 entries. The Khasra Girdawa ies in favour of the plaintiff. In raneous, recurring public docum 1 is concerned, it shows allotme ents. An allotment document is ever, does not automatically o hed factual possession shown b at is required is proof of actual he allottee. Mere production of a d entered into and continued i material times. The finding of lusively established the possess cord, the revenue documents, y the two courts below and sel. revenue records and entries in ss. That presumption is, howev n a suit for injunction is whether d possession by such entries rty has produced cogent materia entries are erroneous or that act vant period.In the present case ntries, namely Ex.s P1–P7, cover

¶4Those documents are not solit ari and successive entries sh a suit for protection of possess ments are of high evidentiary val ent from the surplus pool in fav s a relevant piece of evidence. r mechanically displace the ot y continuous entries and by act dispossession and of uninterrup allotment-paper does not prove t in possession in exclusion of the lower appellate court, that sion of respondent, overlooks t

ver, al to tual ring tary how sion lue. vour Its ther tual pted that

point. On the a relied on certai certain specific relevant but the produced an in entries. The fa necessarily over appellate court doing so, substi oral evidence.

15.

Com rebut presumpti produced Ex. D suit land in the allotment entry, insufficient to d Girdawari whic appellate court plaintiff's oral circumstances th plaintiff remains

16.

It w pendency of th thereafter move defendants had appellant's oral testimony and in lacunae in PW-1's testimon acts of cutting of crops at partic ey must be seen in the contex ndependent witness (PW-2), re act that a witness may have rturn a continuing possession sho appears to have weighed the om ituted its assessment for an ove ming to the crucial question wh ion or not, on the record befor D1 but have not shown uninterrup face of the long series of entr , standing alone and not coupl displace the consistent entries ch point to cultivation and po failed to explain how Ex. D1 evidence and produced positiv he presumption in favour of the s unrebutted. was also noticed by the learne he suit, status quo was ordered ed an application under Order 3 violated the order and cut the s contradictions, the appellate co ny, including omission to ment cular dates. Such omissions may t of the whole case. The plain evenue documents and contigu forgotten precise dates does own in the public record. The low missions disproportionately and erall appraisal of documentary a hether respondent has been able re the court, the respondents h upted, exclusive possession over ries produced by the plaintiff. T ed with proof of dispossession in the Jamabandi and the Kha ossession of plaintiff. Further cured the deficiencies it found e proof of dispossession. In th e revenue entries relied upon by ed appellate court that during d by the trial court. The plain 39 Rule 2-A CPC alleging that standing crop. The lower appel

ourt y be ntiff uous not wer d, in e to have n, is asra d in hese ntiff

court has referr witness box the an inference ad omission is not during the pend the plaintiff wa cannot be equa plaintiff in his revenue entries possession of th revenue record,

17.

that the defenda that basis conclu prior to allotme position. The ex land/allotment s statute or schem itself mean that land which is su preference, not on the evidence tenants falling conclusion that plaintiff. Unless red to this circumstance and ob e plaintiff did not mention the cu dverse to his case. In the consi t fatal to the plaintiff's claim. E dency of the proceedings, that ac as dispossessed of the land. P ted with removal of a single c testimony on that point by itse relied upon by him. The crucial he land, and the plaintiff's evide remains unshaken. e lower appellate court has furth ants were shown as "A-class tena uded that they must have been ent. That inference, however, d xpression "permissible tenant" or scheme refers to the category of me to receive allotment from th t they were in actual physical p ubsequently allotted to them. Th of factual possession. Actual po e on record. Thus, merely bec in the category of permissib they were already cultivating s there is cogent proof that they bserved that while appearing in utting of crops, and therefore dr idered opinion of this Court, su Even if the standing crop was ct by itself would not establish t Possession of immovable prope crop, nor does the omission of lf discredit the consistent chain l question is who was in cultivat ence on that score, supported by her referred to Ex. D1 and observ ants" or permissible tenants, and in possession of the suit land ev does not correctly reflect the le r "A-class tenant" under the surp f tenants who are eligible under he surplus pool, and it does not possession of the specific parcel he concept is one of entitlement ossession still has to be establish cause the defendants were eligi ble tenants does not lead to the suit land in exclusion of had taken over physical possess

rew uch cut that erty n of ting ved d on ven egal plus t by l of hed ible

prior to the ins continuous rev "permissible ten

18.

Com decision in Teh

(1) Law Herald may not be main By relying upon that the presen misplaced. The the present case question in cont in revenue reco and factual case does not govern Conclusion

19.

Hav view that the a accordingly allo Additional Distr

19.04.1995 pass

20.

Pen

September 23, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh stitution of the suit, the presu venue entries cannot be displ nants." ming to the next argument, the sildar, Urban Improvement Tru d SC 356, where it was observed ntainable when the title of the pl n that judgment learned counsel nt suit for injunction is not m authority relied upon is disting e, the plaintiff does not seek an troversy is possession. The fact t ords does not, without more, di e of continuous cultivation and n the specific facts of this litigatio ving considered the record and appeal deserves to be allowed owed. The judgment and decre rict Judge, Jagadhri are set aside sed by the learned Sub Judge, Ist nding application(s), if any, also 2025

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No umption attached to the plainti laced by invoking the label e respondents have relied upon ust v. Ganga Bai Menariya (20 that a suit simpliciter for injunct laintiff is disputed by the defenda for the respondents seeks to ar maintainable. That submission guishable because, on the record ny declaration of title and the c that the land may have been allot isplace the plaintiff's document possession. In short, the preced on. the rival submissions, I am of d. The Regular Second Appeal ee dated 22.12.1997 passed by e and the judgment and decree da t Class, Jagadhri are restored. stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU)

JUDGE ing o

iff's of 024) ant. gue n is d of core tted tary dent l is