JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral) - CM-9074-C-2018 in RSA-3417-2018

1. Prayer in the application is for impleading the legal representatives of appellant Sher Singh who has died on 11.02.2016.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the persons mentioned in para No.2 are impleaded as legal representatives of appellant Sher Singh.

Main Case

3. This order shall dispose of the above referred two appeals as the parties involved in both the appeals are same and the issue is identical. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from RSA-3417-2018.

4. Suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking decree of mandatory injunction, restraining the respondents/defendants not to interfere in the use and occupation of land measuring 32K-0M Khewat No.218min/206, Khatoni No.313 as per jamabandi for the year 2001-02 which was converted in Khewat No.242, Khatoni No.326 in the jamabandi for the year 2006-07, situated in village Asawari (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land') was dismissed and the counter claim filed by the respondents/defendants was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 25.09.2014. The appeals preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court met with the same fate.

5. The parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

6. The pleaded case of the plaintiff may be noticed as thus. One Shamsher Singh, resident of Jhoju Kalan was the owner of the suit land. The plaintiff was in cultivating possession of the suit land as Mujara Gair Marusi under said Shamsher Singh. Thereafter, ancestors of defendant Jai Lal were allotted the suit land under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act'). The plaintiff was in cultivating possession of the suit land as Mujara Gair Marusi after its allotment to Jai Lal (ancestor of the defendants) and even though after Jai Lal's death, the defendants had become owners of the suit land, however, the plaintiff continued to be in cultivating possession of the same. As the defendants were threatening to alienate the suit land, the plaintiff filed the suit in question seeking a decree of mandatory injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's use and occupation of the suit land.

7. The defendants in their written statement denied that the plaintiff was Mujara Gair Marusi ever since lifetime of Shamsher Singh. It was averred that the suit land had been allotted to Jai Lal and it remained in his possession till his death. After his death, the defendants had been cultivating the suit land, however, the plaintiff had been wrongly recorded as Mujara Gair Marusi in the revenue records. The defendants also filed counter claim praying that the entries with respect to the suit land be changed in the name of the defendants after deleting the name of the plaintiff as Mujara Gair Marusi in the revenue records, and in the alternative they demanded possession of the suit land in case the possession of the defendants was not proved.

8. Both the Courts below on the basis of material and other evidence led, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by recording concurrent findings. The Courts below accepted the counter claim of the defendants and held that on the allotment of the land to Jai Lal, plaintiff's tenancy stood terminated. It was also held by the Courts below that after the allotment, the plaintiff had become a stranger to the land, therefore, the defendants were entitled to regain possession of the suit land. Hence, these appeals to impugn the said findings.

9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that the Courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees failed to appreciate that tenancy could be terminated either by the owner of the land or by the competent revenue authority, however, in the present case it was not terminated by either of them. Moreover, mere allotment of land to Jai Lal could not have the effect o