Punjab-Haryana High Court
Piar Kaur And Others vs Surjit Kaur And Others on 4 December, 2008
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
RSA No.3743 of 2008(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3743 of 2008(O&M)
Date of decision: 4.12.2008
Piar Kaur and others ......Appellants
Versus
Surjit Kaur and others ......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate for the appellants.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
CM No.11158-C of 2008 For the reasons recorded in the application, delay of 12 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
RSA No.3743 of 2008 Briefly stated, the plaintiffs including the appellants filed suit for possession with declaration that they are the owners of the land measuring 24 kanals 14 marlas bearing Khara Nos.103/3, 8, 9/2, 10/2, 13/1 Khata Khatauni Nos.1034/1396 as per Jamabandi for the year 1989- 90 situated in village Gumtala Suburban, Tehsil and District Amritsar, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling, mortgaging transferring, alienating in any manner the suit property or any part thereof on the averments that they are the owners of the said land being "Panahi Qadim" and mutation to this effect was sanctioned in their favour vide mutation Nos.5174 to 5176. They are already in possession of the land measuring 16 kanals 18 marlas bearing khasra Nos.103/12, 18/2 and 19. Khata Khatauni Nos.1034/1395 as per Jamabandi for the year 1989-90 situated in village Gumtala Suburban, Tehsil and District Amritsar, being owners. The defendants are in illegal RSA No.3743 of 2008(O&M) 2 possession being trespassers of the remaining khasra numbers of the suit property. The plaintiffs requested the defendants to deliver the possession of the suit land but to avail and rather they had threatened to sell, mortgage, transfer or alienate this property or any part thereof, hence the suit.
The defendants appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits while denying the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land, the defendants submitted that defendant No.1 along with her daughters and their predecessor-in-interest were cultivating the land. The alleged mutation Nos.5174 to 5176 is illegal and does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the plaintiffs regarding the land in question. It has been further alleged that previously Prem Singh and Avtar Singh predecessor-in-interest of defendant No.1 and her daughters were in possession of property. Prem Singh died in the year 1984 and was about 80 years and throughout his life, he used to cultivate the land in dispute as owner and now on the spot, defendant No.1 along with her daughters are cultivating the land as owners. Defendants No.2 to 4 have nothing to do with the property in dispute. Mutation of inheritance has been sanctioned in favour of defendant No.1 and her daughters. The daughters of defendant No.1 are unmarried and defendant No.1 is in dire need of money. Defendant No.1 is competent to alienate or in any manner transfer the property she likes. Denying all other material averments raised by the plaintiffs, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief claimed and their suit was dismissed with costs vide impugned judgment and decree. It is pertinent to mention here that the suit of the plaintiffs No.1 and 6 was dismissed in default and the remaining RSA No.3743 of 2008(O&M) 3 plaintiffs i.e plaintiffs No.2 to 5 had pursued the same.
Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court, plaintiffs No.2 and 3 filed an appeal which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 17.7.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar.
Still not satisfied, plaintiffs No.2 and 3 (appellants herein) have filed the instant appeal in this Court challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below.
Sh.Harchan Singh Batth, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the Courts below have erred in law while misinterpreting and ignoring the documentary evidence on record of the case from which the case of the appellants is fully proved. Elaborating further, learned counsel has argued that document Ex.P-4 has been ignored by the Courts below illegally simply on the ground that the same is in Urdu script whereas the true translation in Punjabi was also placed on record of the case and from this document alone it is clearly established that the appellants were not the owners of the suit property as they have obtained occupancy rights from the forefathers of the defendants by paying them the compensation which is evident from Ex.P-4 and the same was followed by mutations in the revenue record in favour of the appellants.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. However, I find no merit in the contentions raised by him. The questions arises whether on the basis of Ex.P-4 the appellants can be declared as owners of the land measuring 24 kanals 14 marlas and further whether a decree in possession qua the land measuring 7 kanals 16 marlas can be passed in their favour and against the defendants. The reply is in the negative for the reason, firstly, that the Courts below were right in law while not reading this RSA No.3743 of 2008(O&M) 4 document into evidence on record that the appellants have not attached its true translation. The document which is in Urdu script can only be read into evidence if the party produces/proves its true translation under the law. The onus was upon the plaintiffs, firstly, to get its true translation with the attestation of the competent person or the person who is authorized under law and get it attested from the person who is authorized under the law. Moreover, this document which has been placed on record of this appeal by the appellants as Annexure P-1 is a simple proceedings before the Tehsildar pertaining to 30th October, 1953 according to which it has been mentioned that the case is fixed for the payment of the amount, regarding the ownership rights and Thakur Singh etc. have received the amount in cash. There is no order on this document by the competent authority conferring the occupancy rights upon Prem Singh and Pritpal Singh etc. as alleged by the appellants. Simply because the appellants have paid compensation to the forefathers of the defendants for declaring them owners of the land in dispute on the basis of occupancy rights is not enough for declaring them as such. Under the provisions of Punjab Occupancy Tenants Vesting of Proprietory Rights Act, 1953, an occupancy tenant becomes owner only if the competent authority has passed any such order in this regard or the persons claiming such rights are recorded as occupancy tenants before the appointed date as per the provisions of the aforesaid Act. Admittedly, there is no such order passed in favour of the appellants.
For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises.
Dismissed.
December 4, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
ps JUDGE
RSA No.3743 of 2008(O&M) 5