Lawful possession as a tenant requires proof of rent payment; mere entries in land records are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J.

1. Plaintiff is in second appeal. Suit was filed seeking decree of permanent injunction in form of restrain against the defendants from dispossessing and interfering in any manner in the peaceful cultivating possession of the plaintiff over the land described in the headnote of the plaint.

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the appellant as the plaintiff and the respondents as the defendants.

3. Plaintiff claimed that he is co-sharer in the suit property and was occupying the land in dispute. He further claims himself to be in possession thereof as a tenant relying upon the entries in Jamabandi for the year 2005-2006.

4. Suit was contested by defendants No. 1 and 3 who filed joint written statement. Apart from taking preliminary objections, the defendants contended that the plaintiff is neither a co-sharer nor is occupying any part of the suit land as a tenant. The property already stands partitioned vide order dated 12th of November, 2010 passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Mukerian. Appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the said order stands dismissed by Collector, Mukerian vide order dated 8th of May, 2012. Sanad taksim already stands issued. The possession of separate parcels of land stands delivered. Thus, the property was not a joint holding as claimed by the plaintiff.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, suit filed by the plaintiff was put to trial framing the following issues:

“1. Whether plaintiffs is co-sharer in settled possession over the property in dispute? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is occupying the property in dispute as tenant of defendants? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

4. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable? OPP

5. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPP

6. Whether the plaintiff has concealed material facts at the time institution of the present suit? OPD

7. Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPP

8. Relief”

6. Issues No. 1 to 7 were decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. Resultantly, the suit was dismissed.

7. In appeal preferred by the plaintiff, lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

8. Ld. Counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment and decree submits that despite the fact that the possession of the plaintiff was proved, Courts below erred in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction.

9. On being asked a specific query as to in what status the plaintiff claims to be in possession of the suit land, Mr. Bansal fairly submits that the plaintiff is in possession as a tenant.

10. I have perused the jamabandi for the year 2005-2006 and 2010- 2011 wherein the plaintiff has been recorded in possession in Column No. 5 only as gair marusi without there being any corresponding entry in Column No. 9. Trite it is that stray entry in jamabandi, recording a party as a gair marusi without paying any rent, cannot be relied upon to hold lawful possession. Entry of gair marusi itself cannot be relied upon to conclude that a person so recorded is in lawful possession as tenant. In order to prove lawful possession, the possessee is required to prove payment of rent. No evidence was adduced by the appellant to prove his lawful status to retain possession.

11. In view thereof, this Court does not find that the Court below erred in holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the suit property as tenant and thus was not entitled for decree of permanent injunction. Resultantly, the instant appeal is dismissed.

12. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed off.