Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagmal Singh And Others vs Sarbati And Others on 2 February, 2011
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
RSA No.4075 of 2009 (O & M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.4075 of 2009 (O & M)
Date of Decision: 02.02.2011
Jagmal Singh and others
......Appellants
Versus
Sarbati and others
......Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
Present: Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 7.
L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)
Defendants No.1 to 4, having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below, have filed the instant second appeal Respondent Nos.1 to 7-plaintiffs filed suit against appellants and respondent Nos.8 to 15 as defendants alleging that the plaintiffs are occupancy tenants over the suit land as declared by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.1992 upheld in appeal by Collector vide judgment dated 29.03.1994 and, therefore, plaintiffs have become owners of the suit land in view of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1952 (Act No.8 of 1993) (in short, the Proprietory Act). Accordingly, plaintiffs sought declaration to this effect and also sought consequential relief of permanent injunction.
Defendants broadly denied the plaint allegations. It was denied that plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land. It was pleaded that suit land was in cultivating possession of Umrao Singh RSA No.4075 of 2009 (O & M) -2- and others. Plaintiffs have no concern with the same. Various other pleas were also raised.
Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.2005 decreed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by defendants No.1 to 4 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 21.04.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendant Nos.1 to 4 have preferred the instant second appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Plaintiffs have led oral and documentary evidence whereas defendants have not led any evidence at all. Plaintiffs' evidence stands unrebutted. The same is sufficient to prove their case. On the other hand, strong adverse presumption arises against the defendants for not appearing in the witness box and for not leading any evidence whatsoever. Oral evidence of the plaintiffs reveals that they are in possession of the suit land since prior to consolidation of holdings. Moreover, plaintiffs have produced judgment dated 28.02.1992 Ex.P-3 passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rewari whereby suit filed by plaintiffs was decreed declaring them to be occupancy tenants over the suit land. Appeal against the said judgment was admittedly dismissed. Consequently, the said judgment has attained finality. The said judgment also depicts that plaintiffs are occupancy tenants over the suit land. Consequently, RSA No.4075 of 2009 (O & M) -3- plaintiffs have become owners of the suit land in view of provisions of the Proprietory Act.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Charan Versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2004(3) PLR 569 held that only Civil Court has jurisdiction to grant declaration regarding occupancy tenancy and Revenue Court has no jurisdiction. This judgment was followed by Single Bench of this Court in the case of Tara Chand and another versus Neonand alias Naunda and another, 2005(3) PLR 727. It was accordingly contended that judgment Ex.P-3 passed by Revenue Court is without jurisdiction.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention. It is correct that technically, only Civil Court has jurisdiction and Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to decide the question of occupancy tenancy. However, defendants challenged judgment Ex.P-3 by filing appeal before Collector which was dismissed. Thereafter the defendants did not challenge the said judgment in any manner. They did not challenge the same even in their written statement in the present suit. Moreover the said judgment even if held to be without jurisdiction would not be legally binding regarding the finding of occupancy tenancy, but nevertheless, it would have evidentiary value. Perusal of judgment Ex.P-3 passed by Revenue Court reveals that Jamabandis since 1938-39 till date were produced in that case depicting plaintiffs to be tenants over the suit land continuously since 1938-39 till date on fixed rent of Rs.13/- and Rs.22/- per annum. In view thereof also, it becomes manifest that plaintiffs have become occupancy tenants over the suit land in view of Section 5(1)(a) read RSA No.4075 of 2009 (O & M) -4- with Section 5(2) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and consequently, plaintiffs have become owners of the suit land in view of provisions of the Proprietory Act.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, being bereft of merit.
(L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 02.02.2011 A.kaundal