The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'Gair Marusi' and the requirements for establishing tenancy under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.

JUDGMENT

H.S. Madaan, J. - In nutshell, facts of the case are that plaintiff Vijay Singh son of Waryam Singh, presently residing at Chandigarh had brought a suit against defendant Sukhdev Singh son of Gurbachan Singh (since deceased) represented by his legal representatives i.e. widow -Smt. Swaranjit Kaur and sons - Harpartap Singh and Gurpartap Singh, residents of Patti Jhambra Shahabad, Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra, seeking a declaration that entries of the defendant being in possession as 'Gair Marusi' in various jamabandis 1969-70 till date are illegal, null and void, not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and other co-sharers, with a direction to the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the land measuring 10 kanals 2 marlas comprised in khewat No. 150 min, khatoni No. 151 min, rect. No.58 and khasra No.27/1 by passing a decree for possession, in addition to that asking for grant of mesne profits for the use and occupation of the suit property besides costs of the suit.

2. As per the version of the plaintiff, agricultural land measuring 11 kanals 5 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 150, khatoni No. 151/1, rectangle No. 167(1-3), rectangle No.58, khasra No.27/l(10-2) situated at Patti Jhambra Shahabad (M), Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra was owned and possessed by Waryam Singh, father of the plaintiff along with other co-sharers in terms of the jamabandi for the year 1965-66; that while preparing jamabandi for the year 1969-70, the defendant Sukhdev Singh got a wrong entry incorporated in the jamabandi in collusion with revenue officials regarding his possession over land bearing rectangle No.58, khasra No.27/l(10-2), as 'gair marusi', although the said land was never leased out to the defendant Sukhdev Singh by owners of the land; that Waryam Singh has expired and his estate was inherited by his son, the plaintiff being his sole legal representative; the defendant had purchased 1 kanal 1 marla of land i.e. 6/63 share in the suit land along with his brothers vide registered sale deed dated 19.11.1981 and by virtue of said sale deed, he had become co-sharer in the suit property; that the plaintiff being tenant over the suit property had preempted the said sale and suit for pre-emption filed by him was decreed on 1.8.1984; the plaintiff had deposited the entire preemption amount as per decree passed by the Court on 28.9.1984; the amount was deposited in the Court itself in terms of the decree and such amount has already been withdrawn by the defendant and his brother, therefore, the defendant was not left with any right in the suit property; that the plaintiff had filed an execution application in which the Executing Court could not deliver the possession of 1 kanal 1 marla i.e. 6/63 shares out of the suit property since the land was not partitioned amongst the co-sharers and the portion which was to be delivered to the plaintiff could not be specified being share of the khewat, although symbolic possession had been delivered to him regarding the said share vide Court order dated 6.6.2000. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has been in illegal possession of land bearing rectangle No.58, khasra No.27/1 out of the suit property against the wishes of plaintiff and other co-sharers without making any payment to the plaintiff and other co-sharers, therefore, he is liable to pay mesne profits to be determined by the Court under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC; that when the defendant refused to admit the claim of the plaintiff and to hand over the vacant possession of the land besides paying mesne profits, the plaintiff brought the suit in question.

3. On notice, the defendant appeared and filed a written statement contesting the suit taking up various legal objections including with regard to locus standi of the plaintiff to bring the suit, maintainability of the suit, plaintiff not having any cause of action to file the present suit; that the plaintiff was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the