IMPORTANT POINT
Ownership must be proven with valid title documents; revenue authorities cannot resolve title disputes.

JUDGMENT :

(Alka Sarin, J.) :

This regular second appeal by is by the original plaintiff No.3 (plaintiff-appellant) against the judgement and decree dated 14.12.1992 passed by the Trial Court dismissing his suit, and judgement and decree dated 17.03.1998 passed by the First Appellate Court dismissing his appeal.

2. The plaintiff-appellant, alongwith three others, filed a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the defendant respondents on the allegations that they were owners in possession of the suit land measuring 16 Kanals 8 Marlas comprised in Khasra Nos.335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 364, 373 and 375 with houses thereon in Village Kakrala, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh. Earlier, the Gram Panchayat had also moved an application under Sections 7 and 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961 against the plaintiffs wherein they were declared as owners in possession of the suit land vide order dated 02.12.1985 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Mahendergarh. The defendant respondents, without any right, title or interest, were bent upon to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Hence, the suit. The defendant-respondents contested the suit and filed written statement raising preliminary objections. On merits it was claimed that the defendant respondents were in possession of the suit land since 50/60 years. It was also pleaded that the suit land did not form part Khasra Nos.335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 364, 373 and 375 and that the order dated 02.12.1985 of Assistant Collector 1st Grade was not binding upon them as they were not party to that. Replication was filed by the plaintiffs denying the averments made in the written statement and reiterating those made in the plaint.

3. The Trial Court framed the following issues :

1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the disputed property detailed in the head note of the plaint ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit ? OPD

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

4. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD

5. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs ? OPD

6. Relief.

4. Vide judgement and decree dated 14.12.1992 the Trial Court dismissed the suit. It was found that the plaintiffs had been unable to prove their ownership and possession over the suit land. Out of the four original plaintiffs, only the plaintiff-appellant filed an appeal against the judgement and decree of the Trial Court. Vide judgement and decree dated 17.03.1998 the said appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has contended that the ownership and possession of the plaintiff-appellant over the suit land is proved on the record and that the Courts below have erred in dismissing his suit and appeal. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant-respondents submitted that the Courts have reached concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiff-appellant is not the owner in possession of the suit land and that the decisions of the Courts below need no interference.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has been unable to point to anything on the record to establish that the plaintiff-appellant is owner of the suit land. The plaintiff-appellant failed to produce a single document of title in respect of the suit land. He has placed reliance on the order dated 02.12.1985 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, which order was considered and discarded by the Courts below for the reason that the same was subsequently set aside. Having led in evidence only revenue documents, which are essentially fiscal in nature, this Court has no hesitation in holding that in the present case the plaintiff-appellant has been unable to assert his case to a high degree of probability. Moreover, revenue authorities or revenue courts cannot decide co