Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Kumar And Others vs Girdhar Lal And Others on 6 February, 2012
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
RSA No.3416 of 2002 #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3416 of 2002
Date of Decision: 6.2.2012
Ashok Kumar and others
....Appellants
Versus
Girdhar Lal and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. S.K. Chauhan, Advocate for Mr. R.M. Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
JASWANT SINGH, J Defendant-appellants have filed the present appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment and decrees passed by both the courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for declaration to grant the occupancy rights had been decreed and the findings affirmed in appeal.
The defendants-appellants, in nutshell, have raised two substantial questions of law in the present appeal, namely:
i) Whether the civil court has the jurisdiction to grant the declaration of occupancy rights in view of the bar contained in Section 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887?
ii) Whether in the absence of any pleadings in respect of the rent, evidence on that point can be looked into or appreciated by a Court?
RSA No.3416 of 2002 #2# While issuing notice of motion, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that on identical question of law, another petition bearing CWP No.5266 of 1999 is pending for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court. Today, at the time of hearing, it has been brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the appellant that Full Bench has already decided the controversy involved in the above stated writ petition in its judgment reported as Shiv Charan v.
The Financial Commissioner, Revenue Department, Haryana and others holding that Civil Court alone would have the jurisdiction to determine the dispute envisaged in Section 77(3)(d) of the Punjab Tenancy Act and the jurisdiction of revenue court would be barred. It was further held that a civil suit would lie with respect to both the categories of occupancy tenants as envisaged in Section 2(f) of the Punjab Occupancy tenants (Vesting of Proprietory rights) Act, 1953.
As regards, the other substantial question of law, both the courts below have found that the plaintiff-respondent in his plaint has pleaded that the rate of rent of the suit land was very convenient, which did not exceed the land revenue and the rates and cesses leviable. It has also been established on record by way of copies of Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris and other revenue records by way of Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.15 that the entries of the possession of the plaintiffs is continuous for a period of more than 30 years. It will be apposite to reproduce para 10 of the judgment of learned Appellate Court, which reads thus:
"I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above RSA No.3416 of 2002 #3# points of arguments raised on behalf of the parties and find no force in any of the plea put-forth on behalf of the defendants-appellants, inasmuch as in para 2 of the plaint, it has been specifically pleaded by the plaintiffs that the rate of rent of the suit land was very convenient which in fact did not exceed the land revenue and the rates and cesses leviable in respect of the suit land. While appearing as PW.1 Girdhar Lal-one of the plaintiffs has categorically stated that they had been paying Rs.5.50 paise as rent/Chakota per year for cultivating the suit land since their fore-fathers. The aforesaid factum pleaded and proved on the file also finds corroboration from column No.9 of copies of jamabandis placed and proved on the file relating to the suit land. A perusal of the revenue record rights from 1940-41 till date consisting the documents Ex.P2 to Ex.P15 of record of rights and khasra girdawaris goes a long way to show that except some stray entry pertaining to a lady tenant for negligible period, entries of possession are continuously in favour of plaintiffs. On the other hand, defendants have not stated a word which could show that they had taken any step for increasing the rate of rent or to eject them (plaintiffs) from the suit land throughout this long period of more than 30 years for which plaintiffs are claiming themselves to be in cultivating possession."
In view of the Full Bench decision as aforesaid and concurrent findings of facts on issue of rent and continuous possession over 30 years, nothing survives in the present regular second appeal and consequently, the same is dismissed. Judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are hereby affirmed.
RSA No.3416 of 2002 #4# February 06, 2012 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE