Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

By this order, two appeals relating to same property and between the same parties are being disposed of.

RSA-363-1992 Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiff Parsandi authenticity of this order/judgment Devi and 09 others had brought a suit against defendant Mula and 15 others, contending that they have been in cultivating possession of the suit land measuring 66K-17M for the last more than 100 years through their predecessors in interest as tenant without payment of any rent to the owners; at the time of creation of tenancy, there was an agreement between the parties that the plaintiffs would not be ejected from the land in suit in any case; according to the local custom of the area, the tenants like the plaintiffs had acquired occupancy rights under Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 read with provisions of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1950; the plaintiffs submitted that they have acquired complete proprietary rights over the suit land and they are cultivating the same through tenants i.e. defendants No.11 to 13; the rights of the plaintiffs and defendants No.11 to 13 already stand adjudicated in the previous litigation between them in suit No.60/1 of 1976 titled 'Surat etc. Vs. Smt. Parshandi etc.' decided on 12.02.1978 by Civil Court at Sonepat; as regards another litigation in the form of suit No.106/1 titled 'Mula etc. Vs. Smt. Parshandi Devi etc.', it is contended that a decree for possession dated 17.01.1979 was wrongly obtained by Mula etc., which has no effect upon the rights of the plaintiffs.

4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from plea of occupancy right under Section 2 Rule of CPC.
5. Relief

4. The parties were afforded sufficient opportunities to lead authenticity of this order/judgment evidence in support of their respective claims.

5. After hearing arguments, the trial Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Sonepat, vide detailed judgment and decree dated 25.02.1987 dismissed the suit of plaintiffs, observing that the plaintiffs had previously repudiated the tenancy and have failed to establish their occupancy rights. They have been unable to show that they have become full fledged owners of the suit land.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiffs had preferred an appeal before District Judge, Sonepat, that appeal was assigned to Addl. District Judge, Sonepat, who vide judgment and decree dated 07.12.1991 accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs to the effect that they have acquired occupancy rights to the suit property detailed in para No.1 of the plaint and consequently have become full owners thereof in view of provisions contained in Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act read with provisions contained in the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 and Mulla etc., have nothing to do with the suit land.

13. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, defendants No.1 to 5 had preferred an appeal before District Judge, Sonepat, that appeal was assigned to Addl. District Judge, Sonepat, who vide judgment and decree dated 07.12.1991 had accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.