The main legal point established in the judgment is the conditions for acquiring occupancy rights under the Punjab Tenancy Act and the implications of an implied agreement not to eject the tenants.

JUDGMENT

Ritu Bahri, J. - The appellants have come up in appeal against the judgment of learned trial Court dated 15.04.2014 and learned appellate Court dated 08.03.2017 whereby, the appeal against the judgment and decree has been accepted and the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed as the plaintiffs have acquired the occupancy rights and thus, they are entitled to enter their name as owners in the revenue records in respect of the suit property.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs (respondents herein) are permanent residents of Village Babarwas and are agriculturists and they are residing in the said village since the time of their ancestors. The plaintiffs have been cultivating the land comprised in Khewat No.24/48, Khatoni No.39, Khasra No.678, measuring 38 Bighe 7 Biswe as per jamabandi for the year 1971-72. The aforesaid land was given by its then owners on rent to the predecessors of the plaintiffs around 50 years ago for the purpose of cultivation on rent of Rs. 50 paise per bigha totaling Rs. 20/- per annum for the suit land by the land owners. At the time of inception of tenancy, the suit land was unfit for cultivation and the same was made cultivable on the oral promise of the owners that the ancestors of the plaintiffs and their successors shall never be ejected from the suit land. The forefathers of the plaintiffs by dint of their hard labour and by spending huge amount made the land cultivable and have been paying nominal rent to the land owners and are cultivating the same since then. They have neither been ejected from the suit land by any Court nor they have surrendered the possessory rights to the defendants. The plaintiffs have thus acquired occupancy rights in respect of the suit land under the provisions of Section 5 and Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887 (hereinafter referred to as Tenance Act). It is further alleged that although Chiranji Lal (father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 and grandfather of plaintiff Nos.5 to 7) alongwith his brothers Shish Ram, Jug Lal, Dattu and Tek Chand have since died and the plaintiffs have come into their footsteps. It was alleged that previously, the plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration of their title in the Court of Assistant Collector Its Grade, Bhiwani which was allowed in their favour on 19.02.1996 and mutation No.212 dated 31.07.1996 was accordingly entered and sanctioned. However, feeling aggrieved, defendants went in appeal and the Collector, Bhiwani remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide order dated 07.04.1998. Since, Civil Courts were subsequently vested with the powers of adjudicating the matter, the plaint of the plaintiffs was returned by the revenue Court for approaching the competent Court vide order dated 15.12.2006.

3. Upon being issued notice, defendants appeared and filed joint written statement raising preliminary objections on the ground of cause of action, maintainability, locus standi, estoppel, court fee jurisdiction, non-joinder/mis-joinder etc. On merits, the averments of the plaint were broadly denied and it was strenuously contended that the suit land was never made cultivable by Nanga, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and rate of rent was variable from time to time. It was further contended that the defendants are pursuing the ejectment proceedings against the plaintiffs. It was thus prayed that suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed with costs. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Curt on 21.07.2010:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction? OPD.

3. Whether the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD.

4. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties? OPD.

5. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

6. Relief.

4. Plainti