Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 2902
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
SHEKHER DHAWAN, J.
RAM CHANDER AND OTHERS – Appellant
Vs.
JAI NARAYAN AND OTHERS – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 4802 of 2011 (O&M)
Decided on : 29-01-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :N.C. Kinra, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence in proving the status of tenants in property disputes and the inadmissibility of contradictory pleas.
Headnote:
occupancy tenants - Property Dispute - Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 - The Court discussed the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953. It highlighted the definition of 'occupancy tenants' and 'tenants at Will' under these acts and emphasized the requirements for acquiring the status of occupancy tenants. The Court also referred to the interpretation of 'gair marusi' and 'marusi' tenants and their rights under the Punjab Tenancy Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of evidence in proving the status of tenants and the inadmissibility of contradictory pleas in property disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, legal heirs of Luxmi Narain, claimed ownership of the suit land as occupancy tenants. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled to injunction as they were not the owners of the property. The Court of first instance and the Appellate Court dismissed the suit, leading to the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their status as occupancy tenants and that they were not covered under the definition of 'occupancy tenants' as per the Punjab Tenancy Act and the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act. The Court also noted the inadmissibility of contradictory pleas in property disputes.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to permanent injunction as occupancy tenants of the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the plaintiffs had not been able to produce evidence to prove their status as occupancy tenants as defined by the relevant acts. It emphasized the importance of evidence in property disputes and highlighted the inadmissibility of contradictory pleas.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law was involved and that the facts had already been appreciated by the lower Courts.
Dr. Shekher Dhawan, J.
1. Present regular second appeal against concurrent findings of both the Courts below, whereby suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction was dismissed and first appeal, filed by the present plaintiffs/appellants, was also dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred to as per their status before the Court of first Instance. Relevant facts for the purpose of decision of the present appeal that as per plaintiffs, Dhani Ram was the owner of the suit land. Dhani Ram died more than 40 years back and before his death he had given suit land to Luxmi Narain alias Lichmi Narain, who also died more than 35 years back. Present plaintiffs are legal heirs of Luxmi Narain. Dhan Pal, son of Luxmi Narain died and he was unmarried. Dhani Ram, original owner, had given land for cultivation to Luxmi Narain without payment of any rent. Dhan Pal, son of Luxmi Narain, had executed a Will on 6.9.1996 in favour of Ram Chander. The other plaintiffs relinquished their share in favour of Ram Chander in a family settlement. Plaintiff Ram Chander became owner of 1/4th share. Sons of Dhani Ram and his daughter-in-law Smt. Nanhi died and the defendants are their legal heirs.
3. As per defendants No. 1 to 7, the suit land was given on batai by Dhani Ram and after his death by his legal heirs and the plaintiffs are not entitled to injunction as they are not owner of the suit property. Defendant No. 8 took the plea that he is a bonafide purchaser of the suit land.
4. On these facts, Court of first instance settled issues and both the parties led their respective evidence. The Court of first instance, after appreciating the evidence, returned the findings that plaintiffs failed to prove that they are the owner in possession of the suit land and they are not entitled to relief as prayed for. First appeal filed before the Appellate Court was also dismissed and as such, the present appeal before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the real controversy involved in the case is whether plaintiffs are occupancy tenants or not. However, the Court below returned the finding while coming to the conclusion that Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try and decide such a controversy whether anybody is a occupancy tenant or not. The Court below placed reliance upon judgment of this Court which has already been over-ruled by judgment rendered by Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Shiv Charan v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue Department, Haryana and Others 2004(3) PLR 571.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have been shown to be in possession of the suit land and they are still in possession thereof. Respondents No. 1 to 7 never stepped into the witness box. However, the Courts below have not appreciated the correct facts. Although possession of the appellants is in the capacity of gair marusi and duly recorded in the revenue record and as such, findings recorded by both the Courts below are liable to be reversed.
7. While arguing on these points, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that both the Courts below have already appreciated the entire evidence available on file. Civil suit filed by the plaintiffs and appeal have not been dismissed merely on the point of jurisdiction but otherwise also plaintiffs failed to prove that they have got no right, title or interest in the suit property. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that in earlier round of litigation, appellants took the plea that they are owner of the property on the basis of adverse possession and by way of present litigation, they are taking quite contradictory plea that they are the occupancy tenants. Both these pleas are contradictory and the same cannot be taken because occupancy tenants have permissive possession, whereas ownership rights on the basis of adverse possession are based on long established possession which is hostile to the knowledge of true o
