IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1785-1992 (O&M)

Reserved on: 12.05.2025 Pronounced on: 02.07.2025 KHEM CHAND (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS . . . . APPELLANT Vs.

RANJIT SINGH (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH LR AND OTHERS . . . . RESPONDENTS ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: -

 Mr. Vikram Singh Punia, Ms. Yashasvi Rana and Mr. Amit Siwach, Advocate, for the appellants.

 Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1(i)

 Mr. O.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yugank Goyal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1(ii) and 2 to 6.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This is defendants’ appeal against reversal. Suit for declaration to declare them as owner in possession of the suit property filed by plaintiffs - Ranjit Singh and others was dismissed by the trial Court on 27.04.1989. However, the appeal filed by the said plaintiffs was accepted by the First Appellate Court and the suit was decreed on 15.01.1992, declaring them to have become owners in possession of the property in dispute.

2. Trial court record was called. Same has been perused with the able assistance provided by Ld. counsel for both the sides.

3. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Trial Court.

4. Plaintiffs’ Case: The plaintiffs, Ranjit Singh and others, asserted that they had been in cultivating possession of the suit land measuring 22 Kanals and 0 Marla, located in the revenue estate of village Liwaspur, for over 100 years. This possession was either through themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, as tenants. They contended that only a fixed nominal rent was paid to the landowners—i.e., the defendants or their predecessors-in-interest. According to the plaintiffs, despite a considerable increase in land value over time, there was a mutual understanding from the inception of the tenancy that neither the rent would be increased nor the plaintiffs or their predecessors would be evicted. This arrangement, they claimed, was consistent with local custom. In light of these circumstances, the plaintiffs claimed that they had acquired occupancy rights under Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. Consequently, with the enactment of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953, which came into force on April 15, 1953, they became the lawful owners of the suit land. Based on these submissions, the plaintiffs sought a declaratory decree affirming their ownership rights. They alleged that despite repeated requests to the defendants to acknowledge their claim, the defendants refused, prompting the filing of the suit.

5. Defendants’ Response: In their written statement, the defendants raised preliminary objections. They contended that the plaintiffs had already been ejected from the suit land by an order dated 26.09.1983 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, thereby terminating the landlord-tenant relationship. Hence, the plaintiffs lacked the locus standi to file the present suit. The defendants denied the plaintiffs' claim of continuous tenancy for over 100 years. Instead, they asserted that the plaintiffs were non-occupancy tenants under Kehri, Shiv Nath, Shadi, and Chandgi (sons of Mir Singh), who themselves were non-occupancy tenants of the First Degree. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs cultivated the land on Chakota basis and only became non-occupancy tenants after the death of Kehri, Shadi, and Chandgi about 10–12 years ago. Before that, they were described as ‘mujara gair maurusi doyam’ under Kehri and others. It was further submitted that an ejectment application had been filed against the plaintiffs before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, which was allowed on 26.09.1983, resulting in an ejectment order. The defendants denied the existence of any custom or agreement protecting the plaintiffs from eviction or ensuring a fixed rent. They contended that the plaintiffs were permitted to cultivate the land merely out of sympathy, considering their poverty. On these g