Sarita Rani Karnal, as detailed in para 1 of the plaint, and described in the jamabandi for the year 1979–80.

3.2 As per the plain ffs, their predecessor-in-interest, Shri Parma Lal son of Darya Baksh, was recorded as a co-sharer in the shamlat deh land. A*er his death, the plain ffs succeeded to his share. The defendants’ predecessors were allegedly recorded as gair maurusi tenants on 1/3 batai under Parma Lal, and this arrangement con nued with the plain ffs. However, Sheo Ram and Jawala Singh, predecessors of defendant Nos. 4 to 17, obtained an order dated 06.09.1983 from the Tehsildar, Karnal, declaring that no landlord-tenant rela onship existed between the par es. Ac ng upon this, the defendants had their names recorded as co-sharers in the Rapat Roznamcha No. 50 dated 14.10.1984. The plain ffs challenged the said order and entry, contending that the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector Grade-II lacked jurisdic on to decide the issue of tenancy and that the revenue entries were illegal and void. Plain ffs sought decree of declara on to be owners of the suit land and further prayed for consequen al relief of possession thereof.

3.3 The defendants contested the suit on various preliminary grounds, including lack of locus standi, maintainability, limita on, estoppel, and ab- sence of cause of ac on. They alleged that the plain ffs had already been al- lo>ed more land than due at the me of consolida on and had manipulated revenue entries through one of the plain ffs, who was a Patwari. They claimed that the land was originally submerged due to river ac on and later reclaimed by them through personal effort, thereby giving them possessory rights. The defendants also denied any tenancy under Parma Lal and asserted that the Tehsildar’s 1983 order was passed under Sec on 14-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and upheld in appeal by the Collector.

3.4 The plain ffs, in replica on, reiterated their stand. The trial Court framed the necessary issues and recorded evidence from both sides.

4. The learned Trial Court held the Tehsildar’s order dated 06.09.1983 to be legal and binding. It found that the plain ffs had failed to prove the de-

Sarita Rani

2025.04.22 10:46 fendants as tenants, and further noted that possession was admi>edly with the defendants and that plain ffs had not been dispossessed. The plain ffs were held to lack locus standi, and the suit was found to be me-barred. However, jurisdic on of the Civil Court was upheld. The suit was accordingly dismissed on 17.03.1997.

5.1 On appeal, the learned First Appellate Court found that Shri Parma Lal was recorded as a co-sharer. It held that the Assistant Collector Grade-II, Karnal had no jurisdic on to decide the ques on of tenancy, which could only be determined by a Civil Court. Further, no specific direc on had been given by the Assistant Collector for change of revenue entries, rendering the sub- sequent Rapat Roznamcha entry illegal. The Court concluded that the de- fendants and their predecessors were not co-sharers, and their possession was therefore, unauthorized. Reference was made to Wazib-Ul-Arz (Ex.P5) and Missal Burdagi Bramadgi (Ex.P7 & P8) to support the conclusion that land belonging to the plain ffs and other co-sharers had submerged in the Yamuna River and later re-emerged, while no por on of the defendants’ land was affected.

5.2 The Appellate Court further held that even a single co-sharer is en tled to seek possession from a trespasser, and that it was not mandatory to implead all co-sharers. The suit was held to be within limita on, being based on tle. Consequently, the findings of the trial Court were set aside, the Tehsildar’s order dated 06.09.1983 and the subsequent Rapat Roz- namcha No. 50 were declared null and void, and a decree for possession was passed in favour of the plain ffs, direc ng the defendants to hand over va-

cant possession within one month of the judgment dated 10.12.1999.

6. Assailing the appellate judgment, learned senior counsel