RSA-872-2016 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

RSA-872 of 2016 (O&M)

Date of decision: 28.03.2016

Bharat Singh and others

...Appellants

Versus

Guddi @ Urmila and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

Present:

Mr. V.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. J.L. Malhotra, Advocate

for the appellants.

****

Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)

The suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed

by the appellants/plaintiffs (for short 'the appellants') was

dismissed by the trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated

27.05.2013.

2.

Aggrieved against the findings of trial Court, the

appellants filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned 1^st

Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 18.01.2016.

3.

The 1^st Appellate Court affirmed all the findings

recorded by the trial Court after discussing and evaluating the oral

as well as documentary evidence on record, hence, the instant

KUMAR SUMIT

2016.04.27 11:16

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

RSA-872-2016 (O&M)

-2-

appeal has been filed by the appellants.

4.

It is contended that the appellants have acquired

occupancy rights qua the suit land and they are in possession as per

the revenue entries from 1956-57. The learned lower Appellate

Court erred in not deciding the application for additional evidence.

It is proved on record that the predecessors-in-interest of the

appellants were the bonafide tenants and they had been paying the

nominal rent and this fact stand duly corroborated by DW1 Daya

Nand and DW-2 Mahender in their respective testimonies. He

further contends that the both the Courts below have failed to

consider the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Tenancy Act and

further erroneously ignored the documentary evidence of the

appellants, whereby from the year 1966-67 even before the

consolidation, the appellants have been in cultivating possession of

the suit land on nominal rent. The appellants have produced the

receipts of payment of rent along with column of rent to prove

their tenancy as 'Gair Marusi' on nominal rent. The learned counsel

further submits that both the Courts below have ignored the

document Ex.P23, copy of consolidation along with rent receipts,

which established and fulfilled all the ingredients under Section 5

and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and thus, the appellants are

eligible for acquiring the occupancy rights and to be declared as

KUMAR SUMIT

2016.04.27 11:16

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

RSA-872-2016 (O&M)

-3-

owners under the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of

Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953. The appellants were in possession

of the suit land for more than 50 years, which is duly substantiated

by the entries in revenue record. In support of his contention, the

learned counsel cites Rame Gowda (D) by LRs Vs. Mr.

Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs., and Anr. 2004(1) RCR (Civil)

519.

5.

Heard, the learned counsel for the appellants.

6.

The appellants have claimed that their predecessors-in-

interest had been inducted as tenants over the suit land by the

predecessors-in-interest of the respondents for the last more than

50 years and since then, they were in cultivable possession of the

same. The appellant have acquired the occupancy rights qua the

disputed property, in view of the Sections 5 and 8 of the Tenancy

Act. However, the respondents have refuted the claim of the

appellants by asserting that the predecessors-in-interest of the

appellants never cultivated the suit land and they being co-sharers

in the common khewat are in cultivating possession of the suit

land. The appellants have claimed occupancy rights over the

disputed land, whereas, they have failed to produce any document

whereby their names have been recorded as occupancy tenants in

the revenue record before the commencement of the Tenancy Act.

KUMAR SUMIT

2016.04.27 11:16

I attest to th