IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on 04.09.2025 Date of decision: 08.09.2025 I. RSA-9-1994 Gharsi Ram and others ...Appellants Versus Prayag Chand and others ...Respondents II. RSA-400-1994 Gharsi Ram and others ...Appellants Versus Prayag Chand and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the appellant(s).

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 ex parte vide order dated 17.11.2018.

Respondent Nos.2 to 5 ex parte before the trial Court.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

These two appeals have been filed by the defendants of the case against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, while deciding two civil suits between the same par0es and pertaining to the same suit property.

2. Dispute pertains to ½ share in the suit land detailed in head note the plaint, which was mortgaged by one Tulsha son of Kesha resident of village Ghanghala in favour of the plain0ffs Laxmi Narain and others (respondents herein) for an amount of ₹1500/-, regarding which muta0on No.283 dated 25.09.1954 (Ex.P-16) was sanc0oned. Admi>edly, said Tulsha expired in 1962 without leaving any legal heir.

3. It was pleaded by the plain0ffs that their mortgagor Tulsha used to be maurusi (occupancy tenant) on suit land since prior to 1952 and that he had perfected his 0tle by virtue of the provisions of The Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952. According to plain0ffs, on the death of Tulsha, his estate was escheated to the State Government, who became the owner thereof, but defendants No.1 to 26 (appellants herein) claiming to be erstwhile landlords got muta0on No.305 dated 13.06.1963 sanc0oned in their favour regarding cancella0on of the maurusi rights of Tulsha and started claiming to be owners of the suit land to the extent of share of Tulsha. Said muta0on was sanc0oned aAer the death of Tulsha and is challenged by the plain0ffs to be wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding on their rights. According to the plain0ffs, as Tulsha had perfected his 0tle by virtue of 1952 Act, so defendants were leA with no right or 0tle in suit land to get the impugned muta0on sanc0oned in their favour. As defendant had started interfering in the possession of the plain0ffs, so decree for permanent injunc0on was sought by filing one of the suits.

4. In the second suit, plain0ffs assailed the validity of the order dated 02.07.1986 passed by Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Bhiwani, redeeming the suit land in favour of the defendants on the applica0on moved by them, contending that defendants-appellants had no right to move the applica0on for redemp0on, as they were no longer the owners of the suit land.

5. Both the suits were contested by the defendants-appellants on the ground that Tulsha being the occupancy tenant had limited rights only in the suit land and that aAer his death in 1962 and leaving behind no legal heir, suit land reverted to the defendants being land owners and so muta0on was rightly sanc0oned in their favour. They disputed the locus of the plain0ffs to challenge the muta0on in this regard. They also defended the order dated 02.07.1986 of Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Bhiwani to be legal and valid and thus, prayed for dismissal of both the suits.

6. Both the suits were consolidated. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the par0es was taken on record.

7. Trial Court found that as per entries of jamabandi for the year 1953-54 (Ex.P9), Tulsha was recorded to be owner of ½ share in the suit land and as per the column No.12 of the jamabandi, said Tulsha being an occupancy tenant had become owner on the basis of le>er No.176/R/52/890 dated 25.03.1952. It was concluded that since Tulsha had already perfected his 0tle in the suit land, therefore, the said land could not revert to the defendants being the erstwhile landlords, aAer the death of Tulsha as issueless. Accordingly, impugned muta0on No.305 dated 13.06.1963 in favour of the defendants along with subsequent muta