Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jai Pal Singh And Others vs Shanti Devi And Others on 16 October, 2012
Author: L.N. Mittal
Bench: L.N. Mittal
Regular Second Appeal No. 703 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 703 of 2009
Date of decision : October 16, 2012
Jai Pal Singh and others ....Appellants
versus
Shanti Devi and others ....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the appellants
Mr. Munish Sharma, Advocate, for respondent no. 1
Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate, for respondent no. 4
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Plaintiffs who were successful in the trial court but have been non-suited by the lower appellate court have filed this second appeal.
Plaintiffs alleged that they are proprietors in the village. Suit land measuring 39 kanals 14 marlas was given by proprietors of the village to Banarsi Dass for cultivation on account of 'Kar-Begar'. Banarsi Dass was blacksmith and used to repair agricultural implements of the villagers and in lieu of said services, the suit land was given to Banarsi Dass for cultivation. Banarsi Dass died issueless. His wife pre-deceased him. Consequently, the suit land reverted to proprietors of the village. Accordingly, the proprietors including plaintiffs became owners in Regular Second Appeal No. 703 of 2009 -2- possession of the suit land. Defendants no. 1 to 3, who are sisters of Banarsi Dass have started claiming rights in the suit land and started interfering in possession of the plaintiffs without any right, title or interest to do so. They are also conniving with defendant no. 4 - Gram Panchayat. Entire Shamlat land including suit land vests in proprietors as per their shares. Mutation has also been sanctioned to this effect. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought declaration that they and other proprietors of the village are absolute owners in possession of the suit land and entries in column of cultivation in the revenue record in the name of Banarsi Dass are illegal and liable to be corrected in the name of the plaintiffs. Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land was also claimed.
Defendant no. 1 contested the suit and denied the plaint averments broadly. It was pleaded that Banarsi Dass was working as blacksmith against remuneration in kind in the form of grain and fodder. It was denied that he was doing the said work as Begar. As regards suit land, it was pleaded that proprietors of the village being satisfied with work of Banarsi Dass donated the suit land to Banarsi Dass more than 60 years ago and since then he was cultivating the same as owner. It was admitted that Banarsi Dass died issueless and his wife pre-deceased him. It was pleaded that defendant no. 1 rendered services to Banarsi Dass who, therefore, Regular Second Appeal No. 703 of 2009 -3- bequeathed the suit land to defendant no. 1 vide Will dated 5.8.1998 and accordingly, defendant no. 1 is owner in possession of the suit land.
Defendants no. 2 and 3 pleaded that they along with defendant no. 1 have inherited the suit land from Banarsi Dass and are owners in possession thereof. Rest of the stand of defendants no. 2 and 3 is similar to that of defendant no. 1.
Defendant no. 4 Gram Panchayat admitted that the suit land was given to Banarsi Dass for cultivation on account of 'Kar-Begar' for his services as blacksmith to the proprietors as well as non-proprietors of the village. However, after death of Banarsi Dass, the suit land reverted to Gram Panchayat which is accordingly owner in possession thereof. Various other pleas were also raised.
Learned trial court decreed the plaintiffs' suit. Defendants no. 1 and 4 filed separate first appeals assailing judgment and decree of the trial court. Learned lower appellate court vide common judgment and decrees allowed both the appeals and dismissed suit of the plaintiffs holding that jurisdiction of civil court to try the suit is barred by the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed this second appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Regular Second Appeal No. 703 of 2009 -4-
Counsel for the parties conceded that jurisdiction of civil court to determine whether suit land vested in Gram Panchayat or not is barred by section 13 of the Act as the said question has to be determined by Collector under section 13-A of the Act.
Counsel for the appellants, however, contended that entries in revenue record depicting possession of Banarsi Dass are illegal as the suit land had been given to Banarsi Dass for cultivation as Bhondedar in lieu of services being rendered by him as blacksmith to the villagers. Counsel for respondent no. 4 also supported the said contention. However, counsel for respondent no. 1 countered the aforesaid contention and contended that there is no evidence to substantiate the aforesaid contention of counsel for the appellants.
I have carefully considered the matter. Perusal of trial court file reveals that jamabandi for 1994-95 has been produced as Ex. P1 depicting possession of Banarsi Dass as Gair-Marusi without mentioning anything that he was cultivating the suit land as Bhondedar in lieu of services rendered by him as blacksmith to proprietors of the village. There is also no other documentary evidence in support of this plea of the plaintiffs. Oral evidence of the plaintiffs in this regard stands rebutted by oral evidence of defendant no. 1. It is, thus, apparent that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove that the suit land was given to Banarsi Dass as Regular Second Appeal No. 703 of 2009 -5- Bhondedar or in lieu of services being rendered by him free of costs as blacksmith to proprietors and/or non-proprietors of the village.
In addition to the aforesaid, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are also proprietors in the village. No list of proprietors from revenue record has been produced in evidence to depict that the plaintiffs are also proprietors in the village. Consequently, whole case of the plaintiffs falls to the ground and they have even no locus standi to file the suit. The plaintiffs along with their application under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to file suit in representative capacity on behalf of all the proprietors attached a list of proprietors prepared by the plaintiffs themselves. However, on the basis of said list, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs are proprietors in the village. List of proprietors of the village from the revenue record has not been placed in evidence and therefore, the five plaintiffs are also not proved to be proprietors in the village and consequently, they do not even have any locus standi to file the suit.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication in this second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
( L.N. Mittal )
October 16, 2012 Judge
'dalbir'
Regular Second Appeal No. 703 of 2009 -6-