(O&M) Sansar Devi and Ors v. Mahabir Dass

IN THE

1.

SANSAR DEV

MAHABIR D

2.

SANSAR DEV

MAHABIR D

3.

SANSAR DEV

MAHABIR D

4.

MAHANT MA

STATE OF H

CORAM: HO

Present : Mr

Ms

in

for

in

Mr

Mr HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH

Re

Da

VI AND ORS.

Versus DASS

VI AND ORS.

Versus DASS

VI @ SANSAR BALA AND OR

Versus DASS

AHABIR DASS AND ORS.

Versus HARYANA AND ANOTHER ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAM r. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate w s. Nikita Sharma, Advocate for t RSA-2115-2006 and RSA-973-2 r the petitioner in COCP-885-20 CRM-M-32840-2010. r. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal, Advo r. Nissim Aggarwal, Advocate a AND HARYANA H eserved on: 01.05.2026 ate of Decision: 29.05.2026 RSA-2115-2006 (O&M)

…. Appellants

…. Respondent RSA-973-2010 (O&M)

…. Appellants

…. Respondent COCP-885-2010 RS. …. Petitioners

…. Respondent CRM-M-32841-2010

…. Petitioners

…. Respondents MESH KUMARI

with

the appellant(s)

2010 and

10 and for respondent No.2 ocate (through V.C.) with and

Mr

for

Mr

for

for

Mr

for

RAMESH KU

¶1This order shal No. RSA-2115 COCP-885-201

¶2RSA-2115-200 original plaintif

22.04.2006 whe of civil suit N dismissed.

¶3Civil suit No.1 of cultivation in No.8 killa Nos. area 27 kanal 7 in the name of in the eyes of l tenant, with c respondent (he COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M r. A.V.S. Parmar, Advocate r the respondent(s) in RSA-2115 r. Nipun Vashist, Advocate r petitioner No.1 in CRM-M-328 r respondent in COCP-885-2010 r. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate r respondent No.2 in CRM-M-32 **** UMARI, J. (oral) ll dispose of the aforementioned 5-2006 and RSA-973-2010 as 10 and CRM-M-32841-2010. 06 had been filed by the app ff-Rumal Kaur against the impug ereby, appeal filed by the appell No.1080 of 30.10.1992 institu 080/1985 was filed for declarati n respect of the land bearing Re . 21 (4-8), 22 (5-18), Rect. No.9 marla, situated in village Khark the defendant is illegal, invalid, law and that the plaintiff was sti consequential relief of perman ereinafter referred to as defend

5-2006 and RSA-973-2010. 841-2010 and

¶02841-2010.

d regular second appeals bearing well as petitions bearing No. ellants/successors-in-interest of gned judgment and decree dated lants/plaintiffs against dismissal uted on 16.08.1985, had been ion to the effect that the change ct. No.6 killa No.23 (4-4), Rect. 9 killa Nos. 3(4-17), 9(8-8), total khari Bhiwan, since Kharif 1982 , without jurisdiction and nullity ill in continuous possession as a nent injunction restraining the dant) from interfering into the g . f d l n e . l y a e e

peaceful posses from forcibly d

¶4The brief facts that, the suit la in village Khar her husband as After his deat defendant recei with the revenu the suit land in her. She had surrendered th collusion with towards her, ob know of fraud against village correction of K However, durin 1983-84 was p Khasra Girdaw been dismissed intends to dispo from doing so b COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M ssion of the plaintiff over the abo dispossessing the plaintiff therefr of civil suit No.1080/1985 file and including other land measuri rkhari Bhiwan had been in culti tenant since 1966 at the annual th, plaintiff came in cultivati ived rent till Rabi 1983. Therea ue officials, illegally got change n his name from Kharif 1983 w never been ejected from the e possession in favour of the the village Patwari and othe btained her thumb impressions o d and forgery, she filed a com Patwari and the defendant. S Khasra Girdawari to Assistant ng the pendency of said applic repared on the basis of false an wari. Her application for correc d vide order dated 05.08.1985 E ossess her from the suit propert but it was to no avail which nece

ove numbered suit property and rom. ed by Rumal Kaur, plaintiff are ing 121 kanal 14 marla situated ivating possession of Jai Singh, rent of an amount of Rs.1,000/-. ng possession as tenant. The after, the defendant in collusion ed Khasra Girdawari entries of ithout issuance of any notice to suit property. She had never e defendant. The defendant in er persons, who were inimical on blank papers. After coming to mplaint to the Police authorities She also moved application for Collector IInd Grade, Rewari. cation, jamabandi for the year nd wrong revenue entries in the ction of Khasra Girdawari had Ex. DA. The defendant illegally ty. She requested him to refrain essitated the filing of the suit. d e d , . e n f o r n l o s r . r e d y n

¶5The respondent the plaintiff ov plaintiff and he defendant on Rojnamchas N respectively, da marked by her a is in cultivating Kharif 1982 an receipts are for the plaintiff and where brother were obtained defendant plead

¶6The plaintiff fi denying averme

¶7Following issu Court:-

1.

¶2COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M t, defendant in written statemen ver the suit property through h er sub-lettees surrendered the po

22.10.1981 out of her free w No.66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. ated 22.10.1981 were entered by and her sub-lettees. From the cro g possession of the suit land. Th nd Rabi 1983. He had never i rged by plaintiff. Dalip, Jai Day d they forcibly abducted him an of aforesaid persons was posted on some blank papers forcibly ded for dismissal of the suit. led replication, reiterating all th ents of written statement. es in civil suit No.1080/1985 w Whether the plaintiff is in cu under the defendant on the p rent for the land in question its effect? OPP. Whether the suit is not ma OPD

nt admitted initial possession of her sub-lettees but pleaded that ossession of the suit land to the will and understanding. Rapat DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 y the Patwari which were thumb op of Kharif 1981, the defendant he plaintiff had not paid rent for issued any receipt. The alleged al and Ram Swarup are helping nd brought him to village Bhind, d as a Jailor and his signatures under threat and coercion. The he averments of the plaint while were framed by the learned trial ultivating possession as a tenant payment of Rs.1000/- only cash n on the grounds as alleged, if so aintainable in the present form? f t e t

b t r d g , s e e l t h o ?

3.

¶8During the pend in-interest were

¶9The evidence w the suit wherein the defendant possession ove Roznamchas N Ex.DW3/3.

¶10During the pen Dass moved a application was ordered to be im due to inadverte the head note rendered by lea

¶11The learned Fi findings of lear

22.03.1982 and defendant by R and kharif 198 plaintiff was no favor of the def to DW3/3 dated COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M Relief. dency of the suit, Rumal Kaur, p e brought on record as plaintiffs. was led by the parties to the suit n issue No.1 was decided again by holding that the Rumal K er the suit property in favour No. 66, 67 and 69 dated 22.10.19 ndency of the first appeal, Ghan an application for impleading s allowed vide order dated 08.0 mpleaded as defendant in place o ence, name of Ghan Shyam Dass of the impugned judgment arned First Appellate Court. irst Appellate Court dismissed rned trial Court by holding that d Ex. PW-9/E dated 7.7.1983 re Rumal Kaur, plaintiff for the crop 82 and Rabi 1983 respectively ot in cultivating possession since fendant vide Rapat Roznamchas d 22.10.1981.

plaintiff died and her successors-t. Learned trial Court dismissed nst the plaintiff and in favour of Kaur, plaintiff had surrendered r of the defendant vide Rapat 981 Ex. DW3/1, Ex. DW3/2 and Shyam Dass died and Mahabir him as defendant. The said

04.2005 and Mahabir Dass was of Ghan Shyam Dass. However, s was mentioned as defendant in and decree dated 22.04.2006, the first appeal and upheld the t the receipts Ex. PW-9/B dated egarding payment of rent to the p Kharif 1981 and Rabi 1982 y, are not proved whereas the e she delivered the possession in Nos. 66,67 and 69 Exs. DW3/1 - d f d t d r d s , n , e d e e n

¶12The RSA-2115 dated 22.04.200 "(a

(b)

(c)

(d)

¶13At the time of a ordered that "In to possession ov

¶14RSA No.973 appellants/plain COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M 5-2006, was admitted against i 06 on the following substantial q a) Whether a Receipt duly prov Hand-writing Expert can be of denial of the person issuin ) Whether it was safe to plac Roznamchas Ex. DW-3/1 t impressions of a rustic lady by deceit and mis-representa ) Whether the Receipt Ex. DW Ghan Shyam Dass landlord Kharif 1982 and Rabi, 19 respondent that Rumal Kau the land in dispute on 22.10 ) Whether the findings of fa below making random appreciation of the material sanctity or concurrent find challenge and interference in admission of RSA No.2115 of 2 n the meantime, the parties shall ver suit land." of 2010 arises out of dism ntiffs vide impugned judgment a

mpugned judgment and decree questions of law:- ved by examining its scribe and disbelieved merely on the basis ng the same? e unstinted reliance upon Rapat to Ex. DW-3/3 bearing thumb-y alleged to have been obtained ation? W-9/E dated 7.7.1983 issued by d in token of receipt of rent of 983 falsifies the claim of the ur had surrendered possession of .1981? acts recorded by the Ld. Courts observations and on wrong l evidence on record, enjoy the dings so as to be immune to n the second appeal?" 2006, on 27.09.2007, it was also maintain status quo with regard missal of appeal filed by the and decree dated 18.09.2009 of e d s t - d y f e f s g e o o d e f

the First Appel suit No. 17 of 1

¶15The civil suit consequential r were in contin No.23, Khatun Killa No.4(5-1 No.21(4-8), Ki killas 9 and me Killa No.7(3-9 18(8-0), 19(8-0 killas 14 and

24.01.1979, in Marusi (tenant possession of measuring 149 Kharkhari Bhiw grant of injunct the suit property

¶16The facts of t plaintiff are tha possession of possession. Th COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M llate Court which had been filed 1987/2007. No.17 of 1987 for declaration relief had been filed that the plain nuous cultivating possession o ni No.23, Rect No.9 Kila No. 0),5/1(6-16), Rect. No.6 Killa illa No.22(5-18), Rect. No.9 K easuring 46 kanal and 9 marla ), 8(8-2), 10(8-0), 11(8-0), 12( 0), 20(8-0), Rect. No.10, Killa N measuring 103 kanal 9 ma the revenue record, the plaintiffs at will). The plaintiff prayed th suit property measuring 103 ka 9 kanal 18 marla situated in wan, Tehsil and District Rewari tion restraining the defendant fro y. the civil suit No.17 dated 18.1 at earlier Jai Singh; her husband the suit property and after his heir names entered in the rev

d against dismissal of the civil n and permanent injunction as ntiff and Jai Singh, her husband of land comprising of Khewat 24(3-16), 25(3-0), Rect. No.13 No.23 (4-4), Rect. No.1 Killa Killa No.3 (4-17), 9 (8-0) total and Khatuni No.25 Rect. No.9 8-0), 13(8-0), 14(7-0), 17(5-0), No.3(7-18), 7(8-0), 4(8-0) total rla as per agreement dated fs are mentioned as Mujara Gair hat she be declared as owner in anal 9 marla out of total land the revenue estate of village i. The plaintiff also prayed that om interfering in any manner in

11.1987 filed by Rumal Kaur, d was in continuous cultivating s death, she was in cultivating venue record as 'Mujara Gair l s d t

a l , l d r n d e t n , g g r

Marusi' (tenant and they have b

(a) There w continue ejected fr

(b) She had they had permane

24.01.19 with her

(c) There w no mean the defe him acco

(d) Defenda occupy t any righ

(e) In view against Rewari, was furt Tenants 1952), th the suit COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M t at will) of the suit land but thei become owner in possession beca as an oral agreement between to cultivate the land and pay from the tenancy. d incurred heavy expenditure in d constructed a bore and installe ently Chahi, their tenancy i

¶979The electric connection wa r own expenses. was huge chunk of agricultural la ns to cultivate and Jai Singh, hus endants to cultivate the land and ordingly. ants themselves admitted that the land, therefore, the defendan ht, title or interest over the suit la of the oral agreement between the plaintiff by the Court of is wrong and the parties are b ther pleaded that as per the prov (Vesting of Proprietary Rights he plaintiff is required to be reco land and entitled to be declared

ir possession is sufficiently long ause; defendant that the plaintiff can the rent and she would not be the improvement of suit land as ed a tubewell and made the land is recorded in writing dated as also obtained by the plaintiff and with the defendants but had sband of the plaintiff approached the possession was delivered to the plaintiff has the right to nts were estopped from claiming and. the parties, the ejectment order Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, bound by the oral agreement. It visions of the Punjab Occupancy s) Act, 1952, (for short-the Act, orded as occupancy tenants over d as owner in possession of suit g n e s d d f d d o o g r , t y , r t

land. Th in the postpon they ref suit.

¶17The defendant objection of it 2 of Code of and cause of a under Section Ghanshyam D facts. It was Mohan Dass, been arrayed a Murti Thakurj pleaded that p possession had Singh and Rum they surrender 67 and 69 wer the plaintiff in in her favour notice. No ag The defendant COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M he plaintiff approached the defen revenue record as owner in ed the matter on one pretext o fused to accede her request whic ts in written statement contested s maintainability and that the su Civil Procedure (for short-CPC action to file the suit and that t 10 of the CPC as the previous Dass, and Rumal Kaur vs. Dharam also averred that the Murti Th Bharawas (hereinafter referred and the suit bad for non-joinde i was impleaded as defendant N plaintiff had not been in posse d already been transferred in the mal Kaur cultivated the suit pr red the possession and in this reg re recorded in favour of Murti Th n connivance with revenue offic of land measuring 103 kanal greement dated 24.01.1979 was ts never permitted the plaintiff t

ndants to get her name recorded possession initially, but they or the other and on 13.11.1987, ch necessitated the filing of the d the suit by raising preliminary uit is barred under Order II Rule C), plaintiff had no locus standi the suit was liable to be stayed s suits titles as Rumal Kaur vs. m Singh, were based on similar hakurji Virajman Aasthal Baba to as 'Murti Thakurji') had not er of necessary parties (later on No.2). On merits, the defendants ession after Kharif 1981 as the name of the Murti Thakurji. Jai roperty for few years thereafter, gard Rapat Roznamchas Nos.66, hakurji. However, in Rabi 1982, cials obtained Khasra girdawari 7 marla without giving them s executed between the parties. to obtain electric connection on d y , e y e i d . r a t n s e i , , , i m . n

C

her name. Pro any right to c competent to e No.1080 filed tenant and nev

¶18The replicatio controverting t

¶19During the pen and her legal h

¶20The learned tri

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

¶21Evidence was l

¶22Learned trial C plaintiffs by ho operty is owned by Murti Thaku claim admission on behalf of M enter into compromise on behalf on 12.08.1985, the plaintiff her ver claimed occupancy rights. on was filed by the plaintiff the averments of written stateme ndency of civil suit No.17 of 19 heirs/successors-in-interest were ial Court framed following issue ) Whether the plaintiffs h possession of the suit land a ) Whether the civil court h present suit? OPP ) Whether the suit is not ma OPD ) Whether the suit is barred OPD ) Whether the plaintiffs are suit by their own act and co ) Whether the Murti Thakurj ) Whether the suit of the plai ) Relief. ed by the parties to the suit. Court rendered findings on issu olding that the Rumal Kaur, plain

-32841-2010 -10-urji and Mahant was not having Murti Thakurji. Mahant was not f of Murti Thakurji. In civil suit rself claimed to be Gair Marusi reiterating the pleadings and ents. 987, plaintiff, Rumal Kaur died brought on record. es in civil suit No.17 of 1987:- have become owners and in as alleged ? OPP has no jurisdiction to try the aintainable in the present form? d under Order II Rule 2 CPC? stopped from filing the present onduct ? OPD i is a necessary party? OPD intiff is time barred? OPD ue Nos.1, 2 and 4 against the ntiff had herself surrendered the g t t i d d n e ? ? t e e

C

possession ove order to claim o fulfill the criter short-the Act, 1 to prove and th thereby dismiss

¶23Findings of the Court vide impu

¶24The regular sec

18.09.2009 was "(i

(ii)

er the suit land and she cannot ownership being occupancy tena ria as mentioned in Section 5 of 1887) and Section 3 of the Act, at suit was barred under Order II sed vide judgment and decree da e learned trial Court were upheld ugned judgment dated 18.09.200 cond appeal No.973 of 2010, ag s admitted on the following subs

i) Whether finding on possess be returned against the app Ex.DW-3/1, Ex.DW-3/2 an been relied upon against th the authenticity whereof bei of 2006 having been admitte ) Whether the findings recor contrary to unimpeachabl evidence on record enjoy the so as to be immune to ch second appeal ?"

-32841-2010 -11-be held to be in possession. In ant, the plaintiff was required to f Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (for , 1952 which the plaintiff failed I Rule 2 CPC. The civil suit was ated 20.02.2007. d by the learned First Appellate

¶09gainst impugned judgment dated stantial questions of law :- sion of the land in dispute could pellants on the basis of Reports nd Ex.DW-3/3 which had also hem in the earlier litigation and ing sub-judice in RSA No.2115 ed and still pending? rded by the Ld. Courts below e and authentic documentary e sanctity of concurrent findings allenge and interference in the n o r d s e d d s o d w y s e

C

¶25At the time of a it was also di maintained by t

¶26COCP No.885 Bala and others quo dated 12.0 property on 25 destroyed all t kothri, damage regarding which complaint (Ann

¶27COCP No.885 2006 vide order

¶28On the basis of of 2010), FIR N 149, 323, 427, District Rewari against Mahan Mahant Mahab of FIR No.83 d

¶29CRM-M-32841 2006 and RSA CRM-M. admission of RSA No.973 of 20 irected that "status quo with the parties." of 2010 has been filed by the ap s, contending that the defendants

03.2010 regarding possession b

5.04.2010 at about 10-11 AM a the standing crops, fences, rem ed the agricultural equipments h the matter was reported to the nexure P-4). of 2010 was ordered to be hea r dated 03.10.2010 passed in this f written complaint Annexure P-4 No.83 dated 08.05.2010 had been , 440, 447, 379 and 506 of IP i, Haryana (Annexure P-1, appen nt Mahabir Dass Chela Baba G bir Dass and others had filed CR dated 08.05.2010 (Annexure P-1) 1-2010, was ordered to be hear A No.973 of 2010 vide order d

-32841-2010 -12-10, vide order dated 12.03.2010, regard to possession shall be ppellants Sansar Devi @ Sansar s had violated the order of status by illegally entering in the suit along with 4-5 tractors and had moved poles, broke the lock of and took away irrigation pipes Police by way of filing written ard along with RSA No.2115 of s COCP. 4 (appended with COPC No.885 n registered under Sections 147, C at Police Station Ram Pura, nded with CRM-M-32841-2010) Ghan Shyam Dass and others. RM-M-32841-2010 for quashing ). rd along with RSA No.2115 of dated 1.12.2011, passed in this , e r s t d f s n f , , ) . g f s

C

¶30I have heard M (in both RSAs, Kumar Aggarw respondent in C

¶31Mr. Amit Jain, the learned trial the suit and firs of deceased Ru of the 122 kan Dass defendan death of Jai Sin thereof, as ten payment of cas rent for the en having received received for K received for K disbelieving the of Ghan Shyam Dass how his s was @ of Rs.10 was paid becau paid as rent for to Rabi 1986 a Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate, lea petitioner in COCP and respond wal, Advocate, counsel for th COCP and petitioner in CRM-M) Sr. Advocate, learned counsel l Court and learned First Appell st appeal. In fact, Jai Singh, fath umal Kaur (original plaintiff), ha nal 16 marla of land since 1966 nt, predecessor-in-interest of Ma ngh, Rumal Kaur, his widow ha nant under said Ghan Shyam sh rent of Rs.1000/-. Ghan Sh ntire land till 1983 and last rec d rent till 1983 is Ex. PW-9/E. Kharif 1981 and Rabi 1982 and Kharif 1982 and Rabi 1983. e receipts Exs. PW-9/B and PW m Dass, defendant. There is no signatures are obtained on these 000/- but vide these receipts, an a use vide receipt Ex. PW7/C da r 20 years which was Rs.200/- pe as per lease deed dated 29.08.

-32841-2010 -13-arned counsel for the appellants dent in CRM-M) and Mr. Sanjiv he respondent (in both RSAs, ). for the plaintiffs submitted that ate Court erroneously dismissed her of the plaintiffs and husband ad been in cultivating possession 6 as tenant under Ghan Shyam ahabir Dass, defendant. After the ad been in continuous possession Dass, during her life time on hyam Dass continued to receive eipt issued by him in token of Vide receipt PW-9/B rent was d vide receipt PW-9/E rent was There is no justification for W-9/E which bears the signatures explanation from Ghan Shyam receipts. Total per annum rent amount of Rs.800/- each, as rent ated 17.09.1966, Rs.4,000/- was er month from crop Kharif 1966 1966. Thereafter, Ghan Shyam s v , t d d n m e n n e f s s r s m t t s m

C

Dass refused t provisions of S for depositing t managed to ge kanal 7 marla o in his favour fr of change in th thereafter, her Dass, defendan

¶32Learned counse learned First A Rapat Roznamc dated 22.10.19 illiterate and r procured by re Dass. At the Patwari secured that she relinqu favour of Ghan complaint again came out of th Collector IInd Girdawari whi Ex.DA because to receive rent and Rumal Kau Section 14A (iii) of Punjab Secu the rent. Ghan Shyam Dass was t the entries in the cultivation c out of 122 kanal 16 marla of lan rom Kharif 1982, in connivance he revenue record, Rumal Kaur successors-in-interest remained nt never came in actual physical p el for the plaintiffs further submi Appellate Court had erroneously chas No.66, 67 and 69 vide E 981 and failed to appreciate tha rustic lady, her thumb impres venue officials on any pretext instance of Ghan Shyam Dass d her thumb impressions on so uished her tenancy rights in re n Shyam Dass. When she came nst the DW-3 Nirjan Lal Patwa hat complaint. She also moved a d Grade, Rewari, seeking cor ich was eventually dismissed e by that time, on the basis of

-32841-2010 -14-ur had to take recourse to the urity of Land Tenure Act, 1956 s very influential person and he column regarding an area of 27 nd changed in the revenue record e with revenue officials. In spite r, plaintiff (since deceased) and d in possession. Ghan Shyam possession of suit property. itted that learned trial Court and y placed unstinted reliance upon Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 at Rumal Kaur, plaintiff being ssions could have been easily at the instance of Ghan Shyam s, defendant, DW-3 Nirjan Lal ome Rapat Roznamchas stating espect of the land in dispute in e to know about it, she lodged ari with local Police but nothing application before the Assistant rrection of entries of Khasra vide order dated 05.08.1985. Rapat Roznamchas, jamabandi e e d e d m d n g y m l g n d g t a . i

C

for the year Girdawari till intended to forc

¶33Learned counse and learned Fir in cultivating p his demise in 1 on the same ter surrendered the Rabi 1983 vide the claim of the on 22.10.1981. the disputed pr influence and t get the revenu connivance wi change in the K Dass, defendan PW-9/B and P issued by Ghan receiving rent a The receipts Ex trial Court and witnesses and e 1983-84 Ex.PQ had been pre Rabi 1985 had merged in the j cibly dispossess the plaintiff from el for the appellants further sub rst Appellate Court failed to app possession of disputed property 971, his widow, Rumal Kaur ha rms and conditions and had paid e possession over suit property e receipt Ex. PW-9/E would no e defendant that possession was There was no occasion for her operty in the year 1981. In fact, took undue advantage of illitera ue entries of cultivation of the ith DW3 Niranjan Lal Patwar Khasra Girdawari was kept a g nt continued to receive rent as PW-9/E from Kharif 1981 to Ra n Shyam Dass under his signat and only then Rumal Kaur, plain x.PW-9/B and Ex.PW-9/E are du learned First Appellate Court fa erroneously held that these receip

-32841-2010 -15-epared and entries of Khasra jamabandi. Ghan Shyam Dass m the suit land. bmitted that learned trial Court preciate that Jai Singh had been from 1966 until 1971 and after ad been in cultivating possession rent regularly. Had Rumal Kaur y on 22.10.1981, the rent up to ot have been paid. This falsifies delivered to Ghan Shyam Dass r to surrender the possession of , Ghan Shyam Dass misused his acy of Rumal Kaur, managed to land changed in his favour in ri concerned w.e.f. 1982. The guarded secret and Ghan Shyam proved from rent receipts Exs. abi 1983. These receipts were tures and thereafter, he stopped ntiff came to know of this fraud. uly proved on record but learned ailed to appreciate statements of pts are not proved. Signatures of a s t n r n r o s s f s o n e m . e d . d f f

C

Ghan Shyam D the handwriting PW9 Ram Swa for putting his s

¶34Learned counse which was inst Singh, Nihal Si permanent inju possession over year 1978-79 a The said suit ha was held in po This also prove whole of the su through her alle

¶35Learned counse of 2010 further Shyam Dass fi sum of Rs.3,00 marla including dated 18.11.19 dispute was com Ex.PX/2 record be dismissed a Dass, defendant on these receipts g Expert, PW4 Som Nath Agga arup. There is no explanation fro signatures on these receipts in fa el for the plaintiffs also submitte tituted by plaintiff Rumal Kaur ingh, Rohtash Singh and Kishan unction restraining these defen r land measuring 149 kanal 18 m as tenant under Sh. Ghan Shyam ad been decreed vide judgment E ossession over the suit land as te ed that Rumal Kaur was in cultiv uit property and the property w eged sub-lettees. el for the plaintiff while addres r submitted that the trial Court iled civil suit against Rumal Ka 00/- and for her eviction from g disputed property which is sub 987 before the Assistant Collec mpromised and Ghan Shyam D ded to the effect that he did not w as withdrawn and that he would

-32841-2010 -16-have been proved by examining arwal, PW11 Krishana Bala and m Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant avour of Rumal Kaur, plaintiff. ed that civil suit No.367 of 1981 on 30.03.1981 against Dharam n Singh son of Sultan Singh, for ndants from interfering in her marla as per jamabandi for the Dass Chela Sh. Bhagwan Dass. Ex.PN and Rumal Kaur, plaintiff enant under Ghan Shyam Dass. vating possession as tenant over was not in cultivating possession sing arguments in RSA No.973 t failed to appreciate that Ghan aur for recovery of rent for the m land measuring 147 kanal 18 bject matter of civil suit No. 17 ctor Ist Grade, Rewari but the ass, defendant got his statement want to pursue the suit and same d never eject Rumal Kaur from g d t

m r r e . f . r n n e e t e m

C

land in dispute dated 24.01.19 dated 19.02.19 with an undert recorded as oc Kaur, plaintiff a rights being occ

¶36Learned couns Panchayat was obtained on Rap is nothing on explained to he of the defendan the appeal perta had already bee findings of the civil suit No.1 therefore, the s learned trial Co in Rapat Rozna to appreciate th the findings of No.1080/1985 plaintiffs are e e. The suit was accordingly dism 79 Ex. PX/3. Defendant No.1 69 Ex. PW9/1 accepting Ruma taking never to back out from t ccupancy tenant in the revenue and his successors-in-interest co cupancy tenants. sel for the plaintiff further s convened whereby, thumb im pat Roznamchas Ex. DW3/1, Ex record that contents of the er and she voluntarily executed th nts. The findings recorded by th aining to civil suit No.17 of 198 en delivered, stands settled in civ e First Appellate Court rendered 080/1985 had been challenged said findings could not have bee ourt erroneously placed reliance amchas No. 66, 67 and 69 Ex.D hat at the time of passing impugn learned trial Court and learned F had already been under chall entitled to be declared as owne

-32841-2010 -17-missed as withdrawn vide order executed one more lease deed al Kaur as an occupancy tenant the compromise and to get her record. In view of that Rumal ould not be denied the ownership submitted that, on 22.10.1981 mpressions of Rumal Kaur were x.DW3/2 and Ex. DW3/3. There said Rapat Roznamchas were he Rapat Roznamchas in favour he learned First Appellate Court, 7 by holding that the possession vil suit No.1080/1985. Since the d in appeal against dismissal of in appeal No.RSA-2115-2006, en taken into consideration. The e upon entries dated 22.10.1981 DW3/1 to Ex. DW3/3 and failed ned judgment dated 20.02.2007, First Appellate Court in civil suit lenge in RSA-2115-2006. The ers because their possession as r d t r l p

e e e r , n e f , e

d , t e s

C

occupancy ten plaintiff) never

¶37Learned counse and learned Fir Order II Rule 2 that, plaintiff is in the revenue permanent inju interfering in h had been filed possession in instituted suit N subject matter o 103 kanal 9 ma Rule 2 CPC esp attained finality

¶38Learned couns Section 145 Co against the pa presented copy adjourned sine On 25.04.2010 with her son successor-in-int nants is continuously uninterr surrendered her possession. el for the plaintiff further submi rst Appellate Court had erroneou 2 CPC. The earlier suit No. 1080 s in possession as tenant and entr record were wrongly changed unction as a consequential relief her possession whereas, the civ d seeking declaration that pl dispute property that also incl No.1080/1985 i.e. land measurin of civil suit No. 17 dated 18.11. arla and suit could not have bee pecially when the decision of ea y. el for the plaintiffs further sub ode of Criminal Procedure (for s arties by Sub Divisional Magis y of stay orders passed by thi die. The plaintiffs had sown sea 0 at about 10AM when Krishan and others were irrigating the terest of Mahant Ghan Shyam

-32841-2010 -18-rupted. Rumal Kaur (original itted that the learned trial Court usly held that suit is barred under 0/1985 filed by the plaintiff was ries in the column of cultivation and she also sought decree for f restraining the defendant from vil suit No.17 dated 18.11.1987 aintiff had become owner in ludes subject matter of earlier ng 27 kanal 10 marla whereas, 1987 pertains to land measuring en held as barred under Order II arlier suit No.1080/1985 had not bmitted that proceedings under short-Cr.P.C) had been initiated strate, when the plaintiffs had s Court, the proceedings were asonal crop over 5 acres of land. na Bala (plaintiff/PW11) along e crop, Mahant Mahabir Dass, m Dass, defendant along with l t r s n r m n r , g I t r d d e . g , h

C

Satvir Singh, R tractors and dam lock of kothri damage to the t boards scribin Kharkhari". Wh Singh, Devi ca committed offe registered unde Police Station them. Learned proceedings ag violating the st COCP-885-201 criminal case by

¶39Per contra, lea plaintiff had re matter of both t 69 Ex. DW3/1 continued to b plaintiff thereaf dated 07.07.19 statements of th trial Court righ Ram Avatar, Kalu Ram and ot maged the standing crop and ag and other things, took away 30 tune of Rs.1 lakh. While going a ng "Land of Baba Mohan D hen Krishana Bala and others ra ame on the spot and saved th ence regarding which FIR No. er Sections 147, 149, 323, 427, 4 Ram Pura, District Rewari, H d counsel for the plaintiffs p gainst the defendants and the p tay orders of this Court by wa 10 and for vacation of stay on th y way of dismissal of petition i.e arned counsel for the defendan elinquished her possession over the suits, on 22.10.1981 vide Rap , DW3/2 and DW3/3, respectiv e in possession of defendant a fter. The receipts Ex. PW-9/B da 83 were forged and fabricated he witnesses. The defendant nev htly held that receipts are not

-32841-2010 -19-thers came on the spot with 5 ricultural equipments, broke the 0 pipes, wire and poles, caused away they also installed two sign Dass agricultural farm Bhiwan ised alarm, Narinder Singh, Ajit hem. Mahabir Dass and others 83 dated 08.05.2010 had been 440, 447, 379 and 506 of IPC at Haryana (Annexure P-1) against prayed for initiating contempt persons named in the FIR for ay of acceptance of petition i.e. he criminal trial in the abovesaid e. CRM-M-32841-2010. nt submitted that Rumal Kaur, r the property which is subject apat Roznamchas No.66, 67 and vely and thereafter, the property and rent was never paid by the ated 22.03.1982 and Ex. PW-9/E and were not proved from the ver issued any receipts. Learned t proved and plaintiff had not e d n n t s n t t t r . d , t d y e E e d t

C

pleaded and pr marked entries cogent and con plaintiff are no favour of plain execute any agr the suit propert over the suit p criteria as state 1952. The plain 66, 67 and 69

22.10.1981. He appeals, contem petition i.e. CR over the suit pr of violation of s

¶40I have given c through the rec

¶41Substantial que and 2 in RSA together for con

¶42There are con

plaintiff relinqu

presence of DW roved how fraud was committ in the Rapat Roznamchas. The nvincing evidence. The statemen ot reliable. They were interest ntiff. Ghan Shyam Dass, defen reement/compromise in favour o ty is Murti Thakurji. The plaintif property. She and her successor ed in Section 5 of the Act of 18 ntiff had never challenged the en 9 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 a e vehemently prayed for dismis mpt petition i.e. COCP-885-201 RM-M-32841-2010, since the pla roperty at the time of filing of th stay order or interference in their considerable thought to the riv ords, statements of witnesses and estions of law Nos. A to D in R No. 973 of 2010 are intercon nvenience. ncurrent findings of learned Co uished possession over the suit W-3 Niranjan Dass, Patwari and

-32841-2010 -20-ted upon her when she thumb fraud is to be proved by leading nts of witnesses examined by the ted witnesses who deposed in ndant was not in a position to of the plaintiff because owner of ff cannot claim ownership rights rs-in-interest failed to fulfill the 887 and Section 3 of the Act of ntries in Rapat Roznamchas No. and DW3/3 respectively, dated ssal of both the regular second 10 and acceptance of quashing aintiffs were never in possession he civil suits. Therefore question r possession do not arise at all. val submissions and have gone d documents carefully. SA No.2115 of 2006 and Nos.1 nnected and are being taken up ourts below that Rumal Kaur, t property on 22.10.1981 in the d others and entries in the Rapat b g e n o f s e f . d d g n n e

p , e t

C

Roznamcha No

DW3/3 respecti

¶43In civil suit N Plaintiff No.2 K The defendants Shyam Dass, de

¶44Krishana Bala and she specific thereafter by h amount of Rs. defendant up t stated that Ghan

¶45The statement Singh, PW2-Ro

¶46PW2-Rohtash recovery of mo dismissed.

¶47PW10-Dalip Si Dayal filed a c Shyam Dass, de dismissed by th pending in this

¶48PW3 Mahinde Board proved th os. 66, 67 and 69 were made ively, dated 22.10.1981. No.1080 of 1985, the plaintiffs Krishana Bala; daughter of Ruma s have examined 7 witnesses in efendant as DW7.

(PW11) in her testimony corro cally stated that suit land was cu her mother, Rumal Kaur since 1000/-. The rent regarding the to 1983. She also proved the n Shyam Dass had never been in of PW-11 Krishana Bala is als ohtash, PW10-Dalip Singh. during cross examination admi oney against Ghan Shyam Dass, ingh during cross examination s civil suit pertaining to 11 killas efendant on the basis of agreeme he Court of Additional Sessions C Court. r Singh, Upper Division Clerk hat meter No. BAAG 569 was re

-32841-2010 -21-vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and s have examined 13 witnesses. al Kaur was examined as PW11. ncluding the testimony of Ghan borated the averments of plaint ultivated earlier by her father and 1965 at the annual rent of an suit land was received by the receipt Ex.PW-9/E and further n possession of the suit land. so corroborated by PW1 Pratap itted that he had filed suit for defendant which had since been stated that he and his brother Jai of land of temple against Ghan ent to sell and that suit had been Court and appeal filed by him is k of Haryana State Electricity eleased on 31.08.1975. d . . n t d n e r p r n i n n s y

C

¶49PW4 Som Nath thumb impress and Q2 on the

06.07.1966, ma dated 06.07.196 receipt dated 17 were compared Shyam Dass tak graphic enlarge disputed thumb mark SA were o signatures mark A3 on the lea

29.08.1966, ma the receipt of th A10 on the r

17.09.1966, ma receipt dated 2

24.01.1979, ma receipt dated

04.08.1970, we Shyam Dass m and also with

11.04.1989, in h Aggarwal, Handwriting and F ions and stated that the dispute lease deed dated 13.8.1965, ma ark Q4 on the lease deed dated 1 66, mark Q6 on the receipt date

7.09.1966, mark Q8 and 29 on t d by him, with the sample thumb ken in the court on 11.04.1989 in ements Ex. PW-4/1 to Ex. PW b impressions mark Q1 to Q99 of one and the same person. He ks A1, A2 and A2A on the leas se-deed dated 06.07.1966, mar arks A5 to A7 on the agreement he year 1981-82, mark A9 on the receipt dated 08.07.1966, mar ark A12 on the receipt dated

20.07.1980, mark A14 and mar ark A16 on the receipt dated

07.07.1983, marks A18 and ere compared by him with the mark S1 present on the back of t specimen signatures mark S2 original as well as with photo

-32841-2010 -22-Finger Print Expert examined the ed thumb impressions mark Q1 ark Q3 on the lease deed dated

9.08.66, mark Q5 on the receipt ed 08.07.1966, mark Q7 on the the agreement dated 04.08.1970 b impressions mark SA of Ghan n original as well as with photo-W-4/10. He has opined that the 9 and sample thumb impression has also stated that the disputed se deed dated 13.08.1965, mark rk A4 on the lease deed dated t dated 29.02.1964, mark A8 on e receipt dated 28.04.1981, mark rk A11 on the receipt dated

12.03.1962, mark A13 on the rk A15 on the agreement dated

15.06.1978, mark A17 on the A19 on the agreement dated comparison signatures of Ghan the stay order dated 16.08.1985 2 to S6 taken in the court on ographic enlargements Ex. PW-e

d t e n -e n d k d n k d e d e d n n -

C

4/11 to Ex.PW A-19 and comp one of the same

¶50PW4 Som Nath had not examin

¶51PW5 Banvari L agreement Ex. P

¶52PW6 Ratan L

08.10.1969 in defendant throu

¶53PW7 Durga Pra on the instructio

¶54PW8 Kapil Ku in his register a was written in h

¶55PW9 Ram Swa

29.08.1966 and

18.04.1981 Ex. documents and

¶56Cross examina denied any litig Ghan Shyam D civil suit by his was dismissed. W-4/17. He has opined that the d parison signature and specimen e person. He has proved his repo h Aggarwal when subjected to c ned the body of the writing of the Lal also proved signatures of G PW5/A. Lal Stamp Vendor stated that his register, stamp paper was ugh Bhagwan Dass for agreemen asad stated that lease deed dated ons of Ghan Shyam Dass, defend umar also proved entry No.64 da and when subjected to cross exa his presence. arup proved his signatures on th d 04.08.1970. He also proved . PW9/A and receipt dated 12.0 receipt Exs. PW9/C, PW9/D an ation of PW9-Ram Swarup is m gation pending between his bro Dass, defendant. He also express s brother against Ghan Shyam D He also expressed his ignoranc

-32841-2010 -23-disputed signatures mark A-1 to signatures mark S2 to S6 were ort Ex. PW-4/27.

cross examination stated that he e receipt mark X. Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant on as per entry No. 2755 dated s given to Ghan Shyam Dass, nt. d 13.08.1965 was scribed by him dant. ated 19.2.1970 vide Ex. PW8/A amination, he stated that nothing he lease deeds dated 06.07.1966, his signatures on receipt dated

03.1982 Ex. PW-9/B as well as d PW-9/E. material piece of evidence. He others Dalip and Jai Dayal and ed ignorance regarding filing of ass, defendant and that the same ce regarding two cases pending o e e n d , m A g , d s e d f e g

C

between his so SDM. At anoth filed by his bro on the basis of receipt dated 1 any payment w say whether an he could not dis

¶57PW12 Satish K Rumal Kaur de

¶58PW13 Sumer summoned file

¶59In order to rebu stepped into th written stateme last 12-13 years Bharawas. Dha were present relinquished th statements befo was ever taken suit land after t and her childre by Nihal, Roh on Rohtash and Ghan Shyam D her stage of his cross-examinati others Dalip and Jai Dayal again agreement. He also stated that h

8.04.1981 was scribed. He also was made at that time or not. He nd by whom receipt Ex. PW9/A sclose whether any payment was Kumar brought the summoned f ecided on 21.01.1979. Singh proved the copy of pla of case title Ghan Shyam Dass v ut the evidence of these witnesse he witness box as DW7 and ent. He stated that he had been s. About 10-12 years back, a Pan aram Singh, Nihal, Rohtash and in the Panchayat and in th he possession of the land of ore the Patwari, appended their by him from Rumal Kaur, plain that day. The suit land had not b en thereafter. He also specificall htash and Dalip and taken to

-32841-2010 -24-Dass, defendant in the Court of ion, he admitted that a suit was nst Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant he could not say as to by whom was unable to disclose whether e also deposed that he could not was scribed. He also stated that s made at that time or not. file titled Ghan Shyam Dass vs. aint vide Ex. PW-13/A of the vs. Rumal Kaur. es, Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant corroborated the averments of cultivating the suit land for the nchyat was held in the temple at Rumal Kaur and other persons hat Panchayat, these persons f the temple. They also gave thumb impressions and nothing tiff or her children regarding the been cultivated by Rumal Kaur ly stated that he was kidnapped village Bhind and his thumb f s t m r t t . e t f e t s s e g e r d b

C

impression was the persons wh thumb impressi

¶60DW1 Dharam corroborated th

¶61Defendants als 1981-82 as Patw Rapat Roznamc Dhani Ram Pa village Kharkh No.66, 67 and

22.10.1981 wer thumb marked Nambardar (P Roznamchas w after admitting Roznamchas N marked these R correct. He also 3/1, DW-3/2 a Nihal Singh wa

¶62In civil suit No Som Nath Agg Durga Prashad, s forcibly taken on stamp papers ho relinquished their possession ions. Singh, DW-4 Gajender, DW5 he statements of DW7 Ghan Shya o examined DW3 Niranjan Lal wari of Halqua Bhandor. At the chas for the year 1981-82 was twari. DW3 Niranjan Lal, spec hari Bhiwan was part of Halqu 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 re entered by him with his hand by Rumal Kaur and Bhikha PW9) and Surendar Nambard were read over to Rumal Kaur an the same to be correct. He furth No.67 and 69 were also read ove Rapat Roznamchas after admitt o proved the copies of these Ra and DW-3/3. During the cross as alive on 22.10.1981. o.17 of 1987 plaintiffs examined arwal, PW5 Banwari Lal, PW6 , PW8 Kapil Kumar Gupta, PW9

-32841-2010 -25-s and no fraud was played upon on the land and appended their 5 Balbir, and DW6 Mani Ram am Dass, defendant. l who was deputed in the year time of recording his statement, produced in the Court by DW2 cifically stated that at that time ua Bhandor. Rapat Rojnamchas and DW3/3 respectively, dated d. Rapat Roznamcha No.66 was Ram, signed by Ram Swarup dar. The contents of Rapat nd she thumb marked the same her stated that contents of Rapat er to Rumal Kaur and she thumb ting the contents thereof to be apat Roznamchas vide Ex. DW- -examination, he admitted that d as many as 11 witnesses. PW4 Rattan Lal Stamp Vendor, PW7 9 Ram Swarup, PW11 Krishana n r m r , e s d s p t e t b e - t a

C

Bala, witnesses of 1987 as PW6 produced by PW No.1080 of 19 No.17 of 1987 examined as PW examined in r plaintiffs exam Singh who in t Krishana Bala statements are brevity, there is

¶63Copies of muta PU/T, copy of decree dated 1 tendered in rebu

¶64The defendant 1987 and prove DW3/2 and DW

¶65Seven defendan the testimony o examined in th

(DW2) who pro vs. Ghan Shya s of civil suit No.1080 of 1985 a 6, PW3, PW8, PW11, PW9 and P W3 Mahinder Singh, Upper Divi 985 is brought on record by PW 7, when he stepped into the w W7. PW13 Sumer Singh examin rebuttal in civil suit No.17/1 mined PW2 Surjeet Singh, PW5 their respective oral testimonies a, daughter of Rumal Kaur; on similar lines in both the civil s no need to reproduce their testi ation Ex. PT and Ex. PU, its Hin statement of Ghan Shyam Dass

18.11.1996, Ex. PW and Ex. uttal evidence by the plaintiffs. s examined Niranjan Lal Patwar ed the Rapat Roznamchas No. 6 W3/3, respectively. nt witnesses are examined in civ of Niranjan Lal Patwari DW3, th his civil suit are Gowardhan, c oved the certified copy of plaint am Dass as Ex. D1, Sh. Sunil

-32841-2010 -26-are examined in civil suit No.17 PW12, respectively. The record ision Clerk in HSEB in civil suit W4 Gurdial Singh in civil suit witness box as PW4 and then ned in civil suit No. 1080/1985 is

¶987Besides these witnesses, Suraj Bhan and PW10 Umaro s corroborated the statement of original plaintiff. Since their l suits, therefore, for the sake of monies. ndi translation Ex. PT/T and Ex. , Ex. PV, copy of judgment and PX, agreement mark P2 were ri as DW3 in civil suit No.17 of 66, 67 and 69 vide Exs. DW3/1, vil suit No. 17 of 1987. Besides he remaining witnesses who are copyist DW1, Puran Lal Clerk t of civil suit titled Rumal Kaur Yadav, Advocate (DW4) who d t t n s , o f r f . d e f , s e k r o

C

identified sign Roznamchas N respectively. H these rapats we the same. Puran supported the c No.17/1987, Gh statement recor civil suit No.17

The documents natures of his father Surender Nos. 66, 67 and 69 vide Exs. e also stated about his presence ere read over to Rumal Kaur, wh n Singh (DW5), Ram Avtar (DW case of the defendants. During han Shyam Dass, defendant had rded in civil suit No. 1080/1985 7/1987. s tendered by the defendants are a Ex. D1-

Pe Ex.D2-

Ja Ex. D3-

Ja Ex. D4-

Ja Exs. D5, D6 and D7-Ra Ex. D8-

Ra Ex. D9

Pe Ex. D10-

Mu

Exs. D11 and D12-Ju

Ex. D13-

Ge

Ex. D14-

Mu

Exs. D15 to D18-Ja Ex. D19-

Kh

-32841-2010 -27-r Singh Nambardar On Rapat DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3, at that time and that contents of ho put her thumb impressions on W6) and Dalip Singh Nambardar, the proceedings of the civil suit d died. The certified copy of his 5 is exhibited vide Ex. DW20 in as under:- edigree table amabandi for the year 1906-07 amabandi for the year 1938-39 amabandi for the year 1961-62 apat Nos.75, 78 and 79 apat Nos.80-81 edigree table utation No.2325 dated

2.08.1988 dgment and decree dated

4.01.1994 eneral Power of Attorney dated

0.10.1983 utation No.182 dated

9.12.1987 amabandis hasra Girdawari t , f n , t s n

C

¶66In additional ev tendered by the

¶67In rebuttal to ad Kumar, officia assessment reg Reader who p PW15/A to Ex the plaintiffs in

¶68Murti Thakurji Shyam Dass, de the affairs of th Mahant Ghan S Marusi (tenant)

vidence, (civil suit No. 17 of 198 e defendants which are as under;- Ex. D20-Stat

da

titl

Sh Ex. D21-

Or

su

M Ex. D22-

Co

civ

M Exs. D23 and D24. Ju

Exs. D25 and D26 Or

Sa

Da dditional evidence of the defend al from SDM Office (PW14) gister vide Ex.PW14/1 to Ex. proved receipts Ex. PW15/1 to . PW 15/G. Copy of sale deed m n rebuttal. i is undisputed owner of suit p efendant was managing the affai he temple were being managed b Shyam Dass. The main question ) or Mujara Gair Marusi (tenan

-32841-2010 -28-87) a few more documents were -

tement of Ghan Shyam Dass ated 13.8.1993 of in civil suit led Rumal Kaur vs. Ghan hyam Dass rder dated 16.05.2002 in civil it titled Balram Dass vs. ahabir Dass ompromise dated 16.05.2002 in vil suit titled Balram Dass vs. ahabir Dass dgment and decree dated

2.04.2006 rder dated 08.04.2005 and

3.12.2005 in civil suit titled ansar Devi vs. Ghan Shyam ass dants, plaintiffs examined Rajesh ) who proved the extract of PW14/4, Om Parkash Meter-o Ex. PW15/14 and bills Ex. mark PXY-1 is also tendered by property. Earlier Mahant Ghan irs of temple and after his death, by Mahant Mahabir Dass Chela n is whether the plaintiffs were nt at will) over the suit property e s t n h f - . y n , a e y

C

and at the time property. The p PW11/3, PW9/ and Mark A ( i Ex.PW3/1, the for a period of evicted. Vide l parties agreed t shall be liable t deed is extend and thereafter i was not indefin plaintiff nowhe Marusi or oc payment of an 17 of 1987, cl Shyam Dass, d agreement, ther learned trial Co while deciding

20.02.2007 of concluded that Mujara Gair M e of filing of civil suits, they w plaintiffs have proved lease agre /1 and receipts Ex. PW7/B, Ex. n civil suit No.17 of 1987/2007) land was leased from 1965 to 1 f 2 years continuously is not pa lease deed Ex. PW11/2, for a that the lease period can be furth to handover the possession. Vid ded from 1966 to 1986. Thus, the in favour of his wife Rumal Ka nite. In the copy of civil suit N ere pleaded that she was in po ccupancy tenant rather she clai amount of Rs.1,000/- per annum laimed agreement of the year 1 defendant that suit property wo re was no reference of above n ourt in civil suit No.17 of 1987 an g the appeal against judgment learned trial Court rendered i the possession of the plaintiff ov Marusi (tenant at will).

-32841-2010 -29-were in possession over the suit ement Exs. PW10/2, PW11/1 to PW3/6, Ex. PW3/7, Ex. PW3/8 ). Undisputedly, vide lease deed 1975 with stipulation that if rent aid, tenant shall be liable to be period from 1966 to 1981, the er extended otherwise the tenant de agreement Ex. PW11/3, lease e tenancy in favour of Jai Singh aur, was for a fixed period and No.1080 of 1985, Rumal Kaur, ossession over suit property as imed that the tenancy was on m. The plaintiff in civil suit No. 1979 allegedly signed by Ghan uld not be vacated. In the said noted 3 lease deeds. Therefore, nd learned First Appellate Court t of learned trial Court dated in the said civil suit correctly ver the suit property had been as t o d t e e t e h d , s n . n d , t d y s

C

¶69The case of the over the suit delivered the p Rapat Roznamc Niranjan Lal Roznamchas vi the defendants of his father S No.1080) in hi not in possessio is in possession and 69 vide E delivery of poss Gajinder Singh Dass, defendan No.1080). Kha Rumal Kaur rem 1981 and there Thakurji is refle

¶70The defendants contents of Rap and DW3/3 d witnesses who e plaintiffs is that Rumal Kaur ne property whereas, the defend possession of the suit property i chas Nos. 66,67 and 69 dated 22 Patwari is examined as DW de Exs. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW examined Sh. Sunil Yadav, DW Surender Singh Nambardar. is statement before the Court al on over suit property it was bein n since 1981. The entries of R Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3 session by Rumal Kaur in favour h (DW4), Balbir son of Lala nt (DW7) when they stepped int asra Girdawari Ex. P2 (civil s main in cultivating possession o eafter, in the column of posse ected in cultivating possession. s had examined Niranjan Lal P pats Roznamachas No. 66, 67 a dated 22.10.1981. The defenda were present on the spot i.e. M

-32841-2010 -30-ever relinquished the possession dant pleaded that Rumal Kaur in favor of the defendants vide

2.10.1981. In both the civil suits W3 who proved these Rapat W3/3. In civil suit No.17 of 1987 W4, who identified the signatures DW8 Sunil Yadav, (civil suit lso stated that Rumal Kaur was ng cultivated by Mandir. Mandir Rapat Roznamchas Nos. 66, 67 /3 dated 22.10.1981 regarding r of Mandir, are corroborated by Ram (DW5) and Ghan Shyam to the witness box (in civil suit suit No.1080) also proved that on some part of the land till Rabi ession, the defendant i.e. Murti Patwari; DW3, who proved the and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 ants had also examined other Mr. Sunil Yadav, who identified n r e s t s t s r g y m t t i i e r d

C

signature of hi Gurjinder Singh

¶71Rapat Roznamc Khasra No.6/23 Kaur, widow o Surender Sing Chowkidar pu possession in f Ram Saran Da Khasra No.6/23 Mahant. There Rewari and on operation and submitted in the Ram Swarup N by Rumal Kaur

¶72Rapat No. 67 d No.9/3, 4 kanal

¶73The subject ma land khasra N 113 kanal 15 m 10/3-7 is being cultivated joint given to Ghan is father Surender Singh Namb h as DW4 and Balbir as DW5. chas No. 66 dated 22.10.1981 E 3, 4 kanal 4 marla and it recital of Jai Singh, Nihal Singh son of gh Singh Nambardar, Ram ublically suffered statements favour of Ghan Shyam Dass C ss with their free consent and M 3 for Kharif 1983 and its Girda is one civil suit pending in the ne injunction order dated 02.05. the same be considered as va e Court. The rapat is signed by N Nambardar and Surender Singh r and endorsed by Niranjan Lal P dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/2 pe l 17 marla of land with similar re atter of rapat No.69 dated 22.10 No.8/21-22, 9/7-8-9-10-11-12-1 marla out of which 4 Killas la g cultivated by Rumal Kaur indi tly by Rumal Kaur and Dharam Shyam Dass, defendant and th

-32841-2010 -31-bardar as well as by examining Ex. DW3/1 is pertaining to land ls proved that on that day Rumal f Dalip Singh in the presence of Swarup Nambardar, Bhikha that they have relinquished Chela Sh. Bhagwan Dass Chela Mahant held cultivated Bajra in awari be sanctioned in favour of e Court of Sub-Judge, Ist Class, 1981 is also issued which is in acated and the writing shall be Nihal Singh, Bhikha Chowkidar, Nambardar and thumb marked Patwari. ertaining to land bearing Khasra ecitals.

0.1981 Ex. DW3/3 pertaining to 13-14-17-18-19-20, 10/3-7 total and bearing Khasra No.8/21-22, vidually and remaining is being m Singh and its possession was his entry also bears recital that g d l f a d a n f , n e , d a o l , g s t

C

from kharif 19 in land bearing entered in the land Khasra No the Court of Su issued in the application shal

¶74Entries in Rapa DW3/3 dated discharge of his

¶75These entries a Evidence Act. T Se "P

do

(1)

(2) 981, Mahant Ghan Shyam Dass h g Killa No.9/11-12 Gowar was name of Mahant. There is also o. 8/21-22, 10/3-7 there is a disp ub Judge, Ist Class, Rewari and said suit and same be stood ll be moved in the Court. at Roznamchas No. 66, 67 and 6

22.10.1981 were made by DW s official duties. are public documents under Sec This Section reads as under:- ection 74 of Indian Evidence Ac Public Documents-The follow ocuments :- ) Documents forming the acts, o

(i) of the sovereign author

(ii) of official bodies and tri

(iii) of public officers, leg [of any part of India or o foreign country; Public records kept [in any Sta

-32841-2010 -32-had sown Gowar and Bajra and s sown and the Girdawari be o another recital that except the pute regarding remaining land in injunction dated 02.05.1981 is vacated and for this purpose, 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and W3 Niranjan Singh Patwari in ction 74 of erstwhile the Indian

ct wing documents are public or records of the acts – rity, ibunals, and gislative, judicial and executive, of the Commonwealth] or, of a ate] of private documents." d e e n s , d n n c

a

C

¶76Section 74 (1) corresponding under:-

"S

(1)

(a)

(b) do

(2) sec

¶77The above refe forming the ac transactions wh the course of t personal know documents.

¶78Section 77 of t documents. Thi "S pro ) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhini to section 74 of erstwhile India Section 74. of BSA-Public and p ) The following documents are p ) documents forming the acts, or

(i) of the sovereign authority

(ii) of official bodies and trib

(iii) of public officers, legis India or of a foreign country ) public records kept in any Sta ocuments. ) All other documents except th ction (1) are private." rred provisions make it abund cts or records of acts of the sta hich such functionaries are requir their public duties, which occur wledge and observations as s the erstwhile Indian Evidence A is section reads as under;-Section 77 of Indian Evidence oduction of certified copies--

-32841-2010 -33-iyam, 2023 (for short-BSA) is an Evidence Act which reads as private documents. public documents:- r records of the acts-y; bunals; and slative, judicial and executive of y; ate or Union territory of private e documents referred to in sub-dantly clear that the documents ate and public functionaries and red to enter in books/registers in r within the circle of their own such, functionaries are public Act provides for proof of public e Act-Proof of documents by -Such certified copies may be s s f e - s d n n c c y e

C

pro of

¶79Section 76 of B Act, which read "S cer the do

¶80It is clear from the public doc certified copy o contents of pub copy of 'Rapat in evidence in v

¶81In these cases, DW3/1, DW3/2 Patwari are dul Punjab vs. Bak " ma rea ma co un oduced in proof of the contents o f the public documents of which th BSA is corresponding to section ds as under;- Section 76 of BSA-Proof of rtified copies-Such certified cop e contents of the public docu ocuments of which they purport to m the reading of aforesaid provis cument, which any person has on demand, such certified copy m blic documents or its parts. Me Roznamchas' as maintained by view of aforesaid provisions. the entries in Rapat Roznamch 2 and DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981 ly proved in his own statement kshish Singh, 2003 (2) Shim L.J ….. it cannot be said by any stre ade in the Roznamcha of the Pat ason to disbelieve the Patwari al ade in the original Raznamcha urse of performance of his off nder Section 35 of the Indian Ev

-32841-2010 -34-of the public documents or parts hey purport to be copies." 77 of erstwhile Indian Evidence documents by production of pies may be produced in proof of uments or parts of the public o be copies". sion that where the custodian of s right to inspect, has given a may be produced as proof of the eaning thereby, a duly certified the Patwari, is per se admissible has No. 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. made by DW3 Niranjan Singh on oath. This Court in State of J. 1540 observed that ; tch of imagination that the entry twari is not genuine. There is no lso in this regard. The entry was by an official concerned in the fficial duties and is admissible vidence Act. The learned lower s e f f c f a e d e . h f y o s e e r

C

Ap reg is ch

¶82These Rapat R DW3/3 dated 2 discharge of his the same under the person who Vishwa Vijai B Apex Court o record can b surreptitiously. stood rebutted prescribed proc

¶83During the cou argued that Bhi at that time, how Court and it is were duty boun

¶84To rebut the co over the part of possession, lear ppellate Court had entered into gard and I have no reason to di hardly open to the State to c aracter." Roznamchas No. 66, 67 and 69

22.10.1981 were recorded by D s official duties and a presumpti r Section 114 of the Indian Evid o asserts to the contrary to rebut t Bharti vs Fakhrul Hasan & Or observed that the presumption be rebutted if such entries . The presumption of truth at d if such entries have not b cedure. urse of arguments, learned coun ikha Chowkidar is not examined wever, death certificate of Nihal for the plaintiffs to rebut the en nd to examine Bhikha Chowkidar ontents of Rapat Roznamchas f the suit property, Dharam Singh rned counsel for the plaintiffs h

-32841-2010 -35-o a detailed discussion in this isagree with the same. Hence, it call its records as of doubtful 9 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3 Niranjan Singh Patwari in ion of correctness is attached to dence Act. The burden lies upon the same by leading evidence. In rs. (1976) 3 SCC 642, Hon'ble n of truth attached to revenue were made fraudulently or ttached to revenue record also been made by following the nsel for the plaintiffs/appellants d and Nihal Singh was not alive l Singh, was not produced in the ntries of Rapat Roznamchas and r in the Court. Ex. DW3/3 which reflects that h along with Rumal Kaur was in as drawn attention of this Court s t l d n o n n e e r o e s e e d t n t

C

towards judgme civil suit No. 3 civil suit No.17 Singh son of S interfering in h of the present a restraining the Rumal Kaur, p against judgme against the jud proforma respo judgment Ex. P Rumal Kaur an property, Khasr given to him an disputed land i be given to Kr and she is in p daughter of Ru appeal was dism

¶85The findings of on 30.03.1981 reflected in ord District Judge, ent dated 26.08.1988 passed by 367 of 1981 instituted on 30.03 7 of 1987) filed by Rumal Kaur Sultan Singh for permanent inj er possession over the suit prope appeals. The said suit had been d defendants from interfering t plaintiff. Only Kishan Singh so ent dated 26.08.1988 Ex. PN. D dgment dated 26.08.1988 Ex. ondent (respondent No.5). During PN, Kishan Singh entered into nd Kishan Singh suffered state ra No.13/4 (5 kanal 10 marla), 5 nd that he is in possession of Kh i.e. 10/1, (8 kanal), 9/24 (3 kana rishana Bala; legal representativ possession of those Khasra num umal Kaur, also suffered statem missed as compromised and decr f the learned trial Court in civil and decided on 26.8.1988 Ex. P der Ex. PL on 20.08.1991 of th Rewari in civil appeal No.95 of

-32841-2010 -36-y Sub Judge, Ist Class, Rewari in

3.1981, Ex. PN (as exhibited in r against Dharam Singh, Kishan njunction restraining them from erty which is also subject matter decreed in favour of Rumal Kaur the peaceful possession of the on of Sultan Singh filed appeal Dharam Singh did not file appeal PN and he was impleaded as g the pendency of appeal against compromise with legal heirs of ement that out of the disputed 5/1 (6 kanal 16 marla) had been hasra numbers 10/1, remaining al 16 marla) and 9/25 (3 kanal) ve and daughter of Rumal Kaur mbers. Similarly Krishana Bala ment regarding compromise and ree was ordered to be prepared. suit No. 367 of 1981 instituted PN and compromise in appeal as he Court of learned Additional 1988, cannot affect the rights of n n n m r r e l l s t f d n g ) r a d d s l f

C

defendants bec and not in rem. to this civil suit to contest the c dated 26.8.198 considered by determine the p civil suit No.17

¶86Learned couns towards compro in civil suit No in civil suit No

24.1.1979 reve ejectment again and he accepts in possession o ejectment and s undisputed that Ghan Shyam D Rumal Kaur as mark A15 was Kaur on her ow with Dharam S Court had righ ause the findings in said suit No Murti Thakurji or its Mahant G t and above numbered appeal an claim of the Rumal Kaur, plaint 8 Ex. PN and order dated 20.0 the learned trial Court and le possession of plaintiff or her le 7 of 1987. sel for the plaintiffs has also omise effected on 24.01.1979, b o. 367 of 1981 instituted on 30.0 o.17 of 1987). The recitals of th eals that Ghan Shyam Dass, nst Rumal Kaur in the Court of S Rumal Kaur as tenant and agree over the suit property and he sh shall get her name entered in th t after 24.01.1979, no action was Dass for correction of revenue r s tenant instead of tenant at wi never acted upon or implemen wn will relinquished the posses Singh, therefore, learned trial Co htly not considered agreement/c

-32841-2010 -37-o. 367 of 1981 are in personam Ghan Shyam Dass was not party nd they never got the opportunity tiff or her legal heirs. Judgment

08.1991 Ex.PL were rightly not arned First Appellate Court to egal heirs over suit property in drawn attention of this Court by Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant

03.1981 mark A15 (as exhibited his agreement/compromise dated defendanthad filed a suit for SDO/Collector, Ist Class, Rewari ed that Rumal Kaur shall remain hall not file any application for he revenue record as tenant. It is s taken either by Rumal Kaur or record for entering the name of ill. This proved that agreement nted. On the other hand, Rumal ssion of the suit property along ourt and learned First Appellate ompromise mark A15 deciding m y y t t o n t t d d r i n r s r f t l g e g

C

civil suit No.17 Court.

¶87Learned counse delivered after Roznamchas. It over this prop defendant charg receipts Ex. PW 1985) /Ex. PX/2 Shyam Dass, d Som Nath Agg Court as well a

¶88It is important t Print Expert, PW Ghan Shyam D these receipts. because he had defendant that h Dayal also file Thakurji again Although, PW before the Cour pleaded in the contents of ab 7 of 1987 and the appeal again el for the plaintiffs are also con getting thumb impression of R t is further submitted that Ruma perty subsequent to 22.10.1981 ged rent at the rate of an amoun W-9/B and Ex. PW-9/E (as exh 2 and receipt Ex. PW3/5 and PW defendant on these receipts are garwal, Handwriting and Finger s by PW11 Krishana Bala, PW9 to note that PW4 Som Nath Agg W9 Ram Swarup only stated ab Dass, defendant but did not state PW2 Rohtash had reason to d filed suit for recovery of mon has since been dismissed. PW10 ed civil suit pertaining to 10 nst Ghan Shyam Dass on the 11 Krishana Bala daughter of rt stated that the receipts were sc plaint. No other witness excep bovenoted receipts were scribe

-32841-2010 -38-nst the judgment of learned trial ntended that no possession was Rumal Kaur on aforesaid Rapat al Kaur remained in possession 1 because Ghan Shyam Dass, nt of Rs.800 per annum vide rent hibited in civil suit No.1080 of W8/2 and that signatures of Ghan duly proved on record by PW4 r Print Expert, examined in the Ram Swarup. garwal, Handwriting and Finger bout signing of these receipts by e anything about the contents of depose against the defendants ney against Ghan Shyam Dass, 0 Dalip Singh and his brother Jai killas of land of temple/Murti e basis of agreement to sell. Rumal Kaur, in her statement cribed by her but this fact is not pt Krishana Bala, deposed that ed by her, whereas PW9 Ram l s t n , t f n e r y f s , i i . t t t m

C

Swarup expres receipts PW-9/B Ram Swarup w these receipts w receipts. Had R Krishana Bala i the signatures o PW-9/E and thi Rs.800/- per an receipts Ex. PW Simply exhibiti its execution. S the onus of pro by Ghan Shyam to its due execu effect to the c treated as admi prove that Gha written and com of the same. N None of the wi receipts after burden of proof Ghan Shyam D ssed ignorance who scribed th B and PW-9/E been scribed by would have been aware of the fac were scribed as he is claiming Receipt Ex. PW-9/E dated 07.0 it would have been bearing her s of its scribe are not appended on is falsifies the case of the plaint nnum as rent, Ghan Shyam Da W-9/B dated 22.03.1982 and E ing a document on record is not Similarity of signatures on the r oof of execution of these receipt m Dass, defendant. Mere signin ution, execution requires signing ontents of documents. A signa ission of execution of receipts. an Shyam Dass, defendant sign mpleted and after fully understan one of the witnesses had proved itnesses stated that Ghan Shyam admitting and understanding t f of a document is on the party w Dass, defendant specifically alle

-32841-2010 -39-hese receipts. Thus, had these PW11 Krishana Bala and PW9 ct of when, where, and by whom to be attesting witness of these

07.1983 been scribed by PW11 signatures as scribed. However, the receipt Ex. PW-9/B and Ex. tiffs that after taking payment of ass, defendant, signed on these Ex. PW-9/E dated 07.07.1983. enough to discharge the onus of receipts also does not discharge ts Ex. PW-9/B and Ex. PW-9/E g of the receipts do not amount g with intent to accept and give ature on blank paper cannot be The plaintiffs were required to ned on receipts after these were nding and admitting the contents d the contents of these receipts. m Dass, defendant signed on the the contents of the same. The who wants to get relief in a suit. eged in his written statement as e m e

, . f e . f e E t e e o e s . e e . s

C

well as testimo under threat on where uncle of cross examinati as a Jailor at vi been going to v defendant rema imperative for t been done by Court in both t prove payment the plaintiffs re

¶89It is also case obtaining thum Police complain her thumb impr Ex. DW3/1 to which her thu misrepresented pleaded that sh ways of the wo stated that Rum categorically st that Nihal Sing ny in civil suit No. 1080/1985 th n blank paper when he was fo f Rohtash (PW2) was posted as J ion admitted that Sanwat Singh llage Bhind. Another fact admitt village Bhind. Rohtash PW2 also ained untraceable in the year 198 the plaintiffs to prove the conten them and the learned trial Cou the civil suits and appeals righ of rent to Ghan Shyam Dass, de elinquished possession over the s e of the plaintiffs that Police mb impressions of Rumal Kaur nt is brought on record. Rumal ressions were obtained in the en Ex.DW3/3. She has not specifi umb impressions were obtaine to her or it was by force or c he was ignorant, rustic, pardana orld. Niranjan Lal Patwari DW mal Kaur was about 55-60 year tated that she was in sound disp gh was alive on 22.10.1981 and

-32841-2010 -40-hat his signatures were obtained orcibly taken to village Bhind, Jailor. PW9 Ram Swarup during is his brother and he was posted ted by him is that defendant had o stated that Ghan Shyam Dass, 81-83. In such a situation it was nts of the receipts which had not urt and learned First Appellate tly held that plaintiffs failed to efendant after Kharif 1981 when suit property on 22.10.1981. complaint was filed regarding fraudulently, however, no such l Kaur in the plaint pleaded that ntries of the Rapat Roznamchas ically pleaded the pretext under ed i.e. whether any fact was coercion. Rumal Kaur had not asheen lady, unfamiliar with the W3 during the cross examination rs of age and he knows her. He posing mind. He is very specific d signed on Rapat Roznamchas d , g d d , s t e o n g h t s r s t e n e c s

C

No.66. Though when she thum Kaur had filed thumb marking

22.10.1981. Sh Rapat Roznam learned trial C relinquished po was put to DW DW3 Niranjan Rumal Kaur on in the Rapat R any specific m record, the entr these entries wh

¶90The plaintiffs "occupancy ten under:-

Section 2

xxx

(f) : 'Oc commenc revenue obtains a h illiterate, Rumal Kaur was not mb marking on Rapat Roznamc d a civil suit against Dharam S g entries of Rapat Roznamch he nowhere pleaded that she did chas when her thumb impress Court rightly held that on 2 ossession of suit property in favo W3 Niranjan Lal Patwari that h Lal Patwari had no reason to o n these Rapat Roznamchas in th oznamchas, he acted in discharg motive is attributed to DW3 Nira ries cannot be disputed as pres hich the plaintiffs failed to rebut alleged themselves to be o nant" is defined in Section 2 (f) 2: Definitions ccupancy Tena'means a tenan cement of this Act, is recorded records and includes a tenant w a right of occupancy in respect o

-32841-2010 -41-t pardanasheen lady at the time chas No.66, 67 and 69. Rumal Singh on 30.03.1981 i.e. before has No. 66, 67 and 69 dated d not understand the contents of ions were obtained. Therefore,

22.10.1981, Rumal Kaur had our of defendants. No suggestion he collided with the defendants. obtain the thumb impressions of he Panchayat. By making entries ge of his official duties. Unless anjan Lal Patwari or proved on sumption of truth is attached to . occupancy tenants. The term of the Act, 1952 which reads as t who, immediately before the as an occupancy tenant in the who, after such commencement, of the land held by him whether e l e d f , d n . f s s n o m s e e

r

C

by agree jurisdicti successo

¶91It is the case o years which ha undisputed that the possession Singh was ten changing the na

¶92Under Section merely lapse of "Section to be acq occupanc

¶93Moreover, in o mentioned in S be fulfilled. The " Section A tenant-

(a) wh ge gra oc ement with the landlord or t ion or otherwise, and include rs in interest of an occupancy te of the plaintiffs that initial tenan ad been further extended vide d t in a revenue record i.e. in jama of plaintiff, Rumal Kaur and be nant at will. Plaintiffs never a ature of their possession from ten 9 of the Act, 1887, tenant canno f time. This section reads as unde 9 of The Punjab Tenancy Act, quired by mere lapse of time.– N cy by mere lapse of time." order to claim ownership being ection 5 of the Act, 1887 and Se ese sections read as under:- n 5 of the Act, 1887 :-Tenants h - ho at the commencement of th enerations in the male line of de and-uncle and for a period of n cupying land paying no rent the

-32841-2010 -42-through a court of competent es also the predecessors and nant." ncy was for a fixed term of 20 different lease agreements. It is bandis and Khasra Girdawaris, fore her, that of her husband Jai approached revenue Court for nant at will to occupancy tenant. ot acquire right to occupancy by er:- , 1887:-Right of occupancy not No tenant shall acquire a right of g occupancy tenant, the criteria ection 3 of the Act, 1952, has to having right of occupancy - (1) his Act has for more than two escent through a grandfather or not less than twenty years, been erefore beyond the amount of the t d s

i r

y t f a o ) o r n e

C

lan ch

(b) xxx

(c) xxx

(d) xxx has a right of o belonging to the tenant was settle or at the expense

(2) If a tenan and paid no ren the rates and ce that he has fulfi

(3) The words relationship by heir and relatio Section 3 tenants Notwiths or usage

(a) all any for nd-revenue thereof and the rate argeable thereon, or x

x x ccupancy in the land so occupie e class specified in the clause ( ed on land previously cleared an e of, the founder. nt proves that he has continuous nt therefore beyond the amount esses for the time being chargea filled the conditions of clause (a) s in that clause denoting nat y adoption, including therein th onship, by the usage of a religiou 3 of the Act, 1952- "Vesting of p and extinguishment of corres standing anything to the contrar for the time being in force on an l rights, title, and interest (inclu ny, recognized by any law, custom rce and including the share in t

-32841-2010 -43-es and cesses for the time being ed, unless, in the case of a tenant

(c), the landlord proves that the nd brought under cultivation by, sly occupied land for thirty years of the land-revenue thereof and able thereon, it may be presumed of sub-section (1). tural relationship denote also e customary appointment of an us community." proprietary rights in occupancy sponding rights of landlords-ry contained in any law, custom nd from the appointed day-uding the contingent interest, if m or usage for the time being in the Shamilat with respect to the g t e

s d d o n y - m f n e

C

lan oc int all Provided that t share in the Sh months of the occupancy righ

(b) the ren his cea

(c) the rev

(d) the co co

¶94Under Section contract or dec without notice relinquished he Ex.PW3/1 to P coercion. At th of suit property nd concerned) of the landlord in cupancy tenant, shall be extingu terest shall be deemed to vest in l encumbrances, if any, created b the occupancy tenant shall hav hamilat by giving a notice in wr publication of this Act or fr hts whichever is later; e landlord shall cease to have an nt or any share of the land reve s liability to pay land revenue i ase; e occupancy tenant shall pay dir venue accruing due in respect of e occupancy tenant shall be li ncerned shall be entitled to mpensation as may be determine 35 of the Act, 1987 a tenant h ree or order of competent autho at the end of that term. As er tenancy by thumb marking o PW3/3 with her own volition, fr he time of filing of civil suits, Ru y as she had already relinquished

-32841-2010 -44-n the land held under him by an uished, and such rights, title and the occupancy tenant free from by the landlord: ve the option not to acquire the riting to the Collector within six rom the date of his obtaining ny right to collect or receive any enue in respect of such land and in respect of the land shall also rect to the Government the land f the land; iable to pay, and the landlord o receive and be paid, such ed under this Act." olding for a fixed term under a ority may relinquish his tenancy discussed above, Rumal Kaur n entries of Rapat Roznamchas ree consent, without pressure or umal Kaur was not in possession d possession on 22.10.1981. Her n d m e x g y d o d d h a y r s r n r

C

possession as o of descents and was more than acre whereas, t rent paid by the learned trial Co facts and evide plaintiffs could therefore, no p declared owner

¶95In civil suit No barred under O plea of owners filed civil suit N

"ORDER Rule 2: S

(2) Relin respect o shall no relinquis

(3) xxx Explanat security f on 1981 was not for more than t d the rent being paid by her and p land revenue as the land had be the land revenue was assessed @ e plaintiffs till Kharif 1981 was m ourt and learned First Appellate ence on record in its rightful p d not be said to be tenants h proprietary rights vested in th r of suit property in any manner. .17 of 1987, learned trial Court r Order II Rule 2 CPC because th ship which was available to the No.1080. Order II Rule 2 CPC re R II-Frame of suit Suit to include the whole claim.— nquishment of part of claim. —W of, or intentionally relinquishes ot afterwards sue in respect shed. tion:- For the purpose of this rul for its performance and succe

-32841-2010 -45-two generations in the main line previous to that, by her husband en taken on lease @ Rs.50/- per @ Rs.9/- per acre. Therefore, the more than the land revenue. The e Court, rightly appreciated that perspective by holding that the having right to occupancy and em and they were rightly not

rendered findings that the suit is he plaintiff has not included the em in the year 1985 when they eads as under:- —(1) xxx Where a plaintiff omits to sue in s, any portion of his claim, he of the portion so omitted or le an obligation and a collateral essive claims arising under the e d r e e t e d t s e y n e r l e

C

same obl action."

¶96The subject ma killa No.23 (4-Nos. 3(4-17), 9 were for declar the name of de with consequen interfering in h 1987 is land me suit No.1080/19 plaintiff Ruma possession of s with consequen from interferin 1080/1985, the the property w from suing reg occupancy ten Rumal Kaur at claimed and the from raising th learned trial C subsequent civi ligation shall be deemed respec atter of civil suit No.1080/1985, -4), Rect. No.8 killa Nos. 21 (4 9(8-8), total area 27 kanal 7 marl ration that the change of cultivat fendant is illegal and invalid an ntial relief of permanent injunc her possession, whereas the subje easuring 103 kanal 9 marla whic 985 and civil suit No.17/1987 w al Kaur and her husband w suit property and that she be d ntial relief of permanent injunc ng in her possession. At the t e plaintiff Rumal Kaur did not s which is subject matter of civil garding this property. The right ant over whole suit property t the time of filing of civil suit e plaintiff Rumal Kaur and her his issue by way of filing subse Court and learned First Appel il suit No.17 is barred by princip

-32841-2010 -46-ctively to constitute but cause of was the land bearing Rect. No.6 4-8), 22 (5-18), Rect. No.9 killa la, and the claim of the plaintiffs tion in respect of the suit land in nd that the plaintiff is still tenant tion restraining defendant from ect matter of civil suit No.17 of ch includes suit property of civil was filed for declaration that the were in continuous cultivating declared as owner in possession ction restraining the defendants time of filing of civil suit No. sue in respect of her claim over suit No.17/1987, she is barred to claim ownership by way of was available to the plaintiff; t No.1080/1985 but it is not so successor-in-interest are barred equent suit No.17 of 1987. The llate Court correctly held that ple of Order II Rule 2 CPC. f a s n t m f l e g n s . r d f ; o d e t

C

¶97In view of the d Court and learn learned Courts Rapat Roznam relinquished he failed to prove misrepresentati Ex. PW-9/E al disbelieved by Court find the cogent, reasone evidence on r reasoned judgm appeals do not c

¶98In view of the the same are ac dismissed sans of FIR No.83 d

¶99Pending applica

29.05.2026 Jyoti-IV

detailed discussion hereinabove, ned First Appellate Court in bo below rightly adjudicated again mchas Ex.DW3/1 to Ex.DW er possession over suit propert e that her thumb impressions w ion or by concealment of facts. llegedly signed by Ghan Shyam the learned trial Courts and lear decision of learned Courts bel ed and based on correct apprec ecord and law in its rightful ments rendered by the learned call for any interference. above discussion herein, no me ccordingly dismissed. Consequen any merit. Resultantly, CRM-M dated 08.05.2010, is allowed. ations, if any, also stand dispose

:

-32841-2010 -47- , the findings of the learned trial oth the appeals are upheld. The nst the appellants, on the basis of W3/3 that Rumal Kaur had ty on 22.10.1981 and that she were obtained by deceit, fraud, The receipts Ex. PW-9/B and m Dass, defendant were rightly rned First Appellate Court. This low in both the civil appeals is ciation of oral and documentary prospect. Therefore, the well d Appellate Courts in both the erit is found in both the appeals ntly, COCP No.885 of 2010 also M No.32841 of 2010 for quashing d of. (RAMESH KUMARI) JUDGE s/No. s/No l e f d e , d y s s y l e s o g