Page 1

JUDGMENT

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4919 OF 2014

(arising out of SLP (C) No. 3353 of 2009)

TARSEM LAL & ORS.

… APPELLANTS

VERSUS

RAM SARUP & ORS.

… RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.

Leave granted.

2.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2^nd

May, 2008 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in

R.S.A. No.126 of 1996. By the impugned judgment and decree High

Court reversed the concurrent finding of the Courts below and held that

Section 36 (wrongly mentioned as Rule 36 in the impugned judgment)

of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972

(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) is applicable to tenancy land and

not to the ownership land owned by a person, and therefore, not

applicable to the appellants herein. The judgment and decree dated

21^st November, 1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (1)

Dharamshala Camp at Una in Civil Appeal No.39/92, RBT No.206/94

were set aside and the suit was dismissed.

Page 2

JUDGMENT

2

3.

The factual matrix of the case is that predecessor-in-interest of

the appellants, Faqir Chand, the original plaintiff filed a suit against

Daulat Ram, Sukh Dev, Ram Sarup and Smt. Vidya Devi for permanent

injunction restraining them from removing the pump set or interfering,

in any manner, with the right of the plaintiff to irrigate his land

measuring 25 Kanals 16 Marlas from well and pump set situated in land

measuring 8 Marlas bearing Khasra No.114R/29 situated in village

Basal, Tehsil and District Una vide Jamabandi 1981-82.

4.

The case of the original plaintiff was that he was inducted as a

tenant of suit land by the respondents, on an annual rent of Rs.1614/-

for a period of 10 years by registered lease deed dated 23^rd August,

1968, along with right of irrigation from a common source in the form

of well situated on the remaining land belonging to the landlord. He was

in possession of 25 Kanals 16 Marlas of land comprised in Khasra

Nos.114R/19/4, 21/2, 22/1, 115S/1/2, 2,3, 8/1, 9/1 and 26 situated in

village Basal, Tehsil and District Una vide Jamabandi 1981-82. On

coming into force of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, the

property rights of the suit land was conferred on tenants, including the

original plaintiff under sub-Section (3) of Section 104 of the Act.

5.

Further, the case of the plaintiff was that the whole of the suit

land was irrigated from the well and pump set situated in Khasra

No.114R/29 situated in village Basal, Tehsil and District Una. The

Page 3

JUDGMENT

3

plaintiff was given right to irrigate 25 Kanals 16 Marlas pursuant to the

agreement dated 23^rd August, 1968 from well and pump set situated in

Khasra No.114R/29. The plaintiff, thereby, pleaded his right to irrigate

the land from the well under the Act and Rules and further submitted

that the defendants have no right to interfere with such right of the

plaintiff. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have

threatened him that they would not allow the plaintiff to use the well for

irrigation and, therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit.

6.

The suit was contested and a common written statement was filed

by the original defendants. Stand of the defendants was that the

plaintiff was a lessee for a fixed term and after the expiry of the lease

the plaintiff ceased to have any interest in the suit property. The

defendants were within their right to refuse the plaintiff to use the well.

The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement. The learned Trial

Court after noticing Section 36 of the Act decreed the suit on 29^th

February, 1992.

7.

Ram Sarup, defendant No.3-respondent No.1 herein, assailed the

judgment and decree dated 29^th February, 1992 by way of appeal

which, after hearing, w