The Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for declaration of ownership, and long and uninterrupted possession by tenants and their ancestors entitles them to grant of rights as occupancy tenants.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of Regular Second Appeal No. 2677 of 1983 filed by the plaintiffs and Regular Second Appeal No. 115 of 1984 filed by the defendants arising out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court dated 30.8.1983.

2. The brief facts out of which the present appeals have arisen are that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of land measuring 43 Kanals 7 Marlas situated in village Bah Atta and also a decree for permanent injunction as a consequential relief for restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the suit land since 1921-22 and they are occupancy tenants over the suit land under Section 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (for short "the Tenancy Act") and have become owners of the same under Section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953. It was alleged that at the time of inception of tenancy there has been promise by the ancestors of the defendants never to eject the plaintiffs and that the proprietors of the village and the ancestors of the defendants have generally and customarily conceded the rights of permanent occupancy to the other tenants in the village Bhahnaur and in the neighbourhood villages. The plaintiffs have continuously occupied the suit land for 30 years and paid rent not exceeding the amount of land revenue. It was further stated that the defendants have now filed a suit for ejectment of the plaintiffs before the revenue Court and, thus, excluded the status of the plaintiffs as owners of the suit land.

3. In reply, the defendants denied that the plaintiffs are occupancy tenants and ever acquired rights of ownership. The suit land is and has been under the ownership of defendants No. 1 to 25. It was denied that the plaintiffs did not pay anything beyond land revenue assessed and even if rent is being paid by the plaintiffs as alleged by the plaintiffs, they are not occupancy tenants over the suit land. Filing of a suit for ejectment was admitted.

4. After filing of the replication, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPP

2. whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit property? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration and injunction prayed for? OPP

5. In respect of issue No. 1 pertaining to jurisdiction of the Civil Court, learned trial Court, relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Amin Lal V/s. Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Haryana and Ors., (1972)74 P.L.R. 96, held that the civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the present kind. However, in respect of issue No. 2, the learned trial Court held that the suit land is Banjar Qadim and that the wood that is grown at the suit land is being put to use by the defendants. It is only the grass which is cut and sold by the plaintiffs from out of the suit land whereas the wooden material grown thereon has consistently been cut and appropriated by the defendants. The defendants have also been mortgaging as well as selling some portion out of the suit land. Thus, the plaintiff are not entitled to the declaration. However, the learned First Appellate Court reversed the findings on issue No. 1 and held that declaration of ownership is a matter which fall within the jurisdiction of the revenue Court but reversed the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiffs are not occupancy tenants. It was held that long and uninterrupted possession by the tenants and their ancestors entitles them to grant of rights as occupancy tenants.

6. In view of the findings of the learned First Appellate Court, the defendants have filed appeal aggrieved against the finding recorded by the learned First Appellate Court on issue No. 2, whereas the plaintiffs have filed appeal aggrieved against the findings recorded by the learned First Appe