Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This present appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 08.7.2005 whereby the suit of the plaintiff Ram Chander & Ors. seeking permanent injunction had been dismissed. Vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.3.2007 the judgment and decree of the trial judge had been reversed; suit of the plaintiff stood decreed.

2. Briefly stated the factual matrix is as follows:

i. Plaintiffs (five in number) claimed to be owners of a plot in Khasra No.98, Lal Dora in the extended Lal Dora of Village Samaspur , Khalsa Delhi 1/4th share was owned by plaintiffs no.1 to 4 and 1/4th share was owned by plaintiff no.5. This was in terms of a khatoni dated 19.12.1994. ii. Defendants were stated to be powerful muscleman having an evil design over the property of the plaintiffs. On 18.1.1995 they threatened the plaintiff. Suit for permanent injunction was accordingly filed. iii. Defendant contested the suit. It was stated the suit is not maintainable. It was stated that out of 1600 sq. yards (1 Bigha and 12 Biswas) comprised in the Khasra No.98 of which the plaintiffs claimed 800 sq. yards was actually in their possession. The present suit is a malafide garb to grab the property of the defendant on which the plaintiffs have no right or title.

4. On behalf of the appellant arguments have been addressed at legnth. It is pointed out that the findings in the impugned judgment are an illegality; they are perverse and liable to be set aside. Attention has been drawn to the order of the Appellate Court dated 24.1.2006 and the subsequent order dated 22.12.2006. It is pointed out that the certified copy of the record of the Consolidation Officer had been taken on record by the Appellate Court without examining the person who had produced the record from the Consolidation Department. What was the record was not detailed; no opportunity to cross- examine or examine this record has been granted to the appellant/defendant. It is pointed out that even as per the case of the plaintiffs, it was in the Consolidation Proceedings which has culminated in the year 1972 when the plaintiffs had allegedly acquired right and title in the suit property; he is, however, relying upon khatoni entries of the year 1991 i.e. after a lapse of more than 17 years thereby establishing that this record was fabricated and manipulated. It is pointed out that the father of the plaintiff was probably alive in 1972 when the Consolidation Proceedings had taken place and not the plaintiffs themselves; they could not have deposed qua that period. The provisions of Section 41 of Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 on which the impugned judgment had placed reliance have been misunderstood and misread; there has been no compliance of the said provision. Attention has been drawn to para 11 of the impugned judgment where the Court had returned a finding that the entries in the khatoni are conclusive on ownership and possession. It is submitted that this finding is perverse and liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed upon (1996) 6 SCC 223 Swarni Vs. Inder Kaur (2003) 10 SCC 352 Dalip Singh & Ors. Vs. Sikh Gurdwara Prabbandak Committee (2004) 12 SCC 58 Suman Verma Vs. Union of India & Ors. to substantiate his submission that entries in the revenue record do not establish title or ownership. It is submitted that even otherwise the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred qua the present proceedings; a suit relating to entries if the revenue record could not be agitated before a Civil Court; for this proposition reliance has been placed upon (1995) 4 SCCC 496 Vidya Devi Vs. Prem Prakash & Ors. , 1970 (2) SCC 841 Hatti Vs. Sunder Singh as also another judgment of (2007) 4 SCCC 213 Kamla Prasad & Ors. Vs. Kishna Kant Pathak & Ors. It is pointed out that the impugned judgment could not have reversed the findings of the Trial Court without assigning sufficient and cogent reasons; which has not been done so in the instant case and for this proposition reliance has been placed upon (2007) 4 SCCC 163 Chintamani Ammal Vs. Nandagopal Gounder and Anr. It is submitted that a judgment which has been obtained by fraud is a nullity; in this case, the plaintiff had relied upon the entries in the khatoni which were fabricated. To support this proposition reliance has been placed upon (2007) 4 SCC 221 A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. Vs. Govt. of A.P. & Ors. It is pointed out that the present suit was a suit for injunction simplicter; question of title could not have been gone into on which the impugned judgment had incorrectly returned a finding. The findings being perverse are liable to be set aside.

10. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction. To support his case they has produced the Patwari who had been examined as PW-2. He had proved Ex.PW-2/1 which was the khatoni for the year 1990-91 evidencing the possession of the plaintiff in the suit land i.e. the half of khasra No.98. In his cross-examination he had admitted that he had not brought the record of the consolidation officer as the same had not been summoned. Pw-3 was a neighbour; he was the owner of the half share in khasra No.98 of Village Samaspur. He had certified that the consolidation proceedings had taken place in 1972 and khasra No.98 was partitioned; all allottees were in possession of their properties. PW-1 was the plaintiff himself. In defence the defendants/appellants had brought five witnesses. DW-1 Satbir Was defendant no.4. In his cross-examination he had admitted that the disputed khasra No.98 was never allotted to him after the consolidation. DW-4 had produced the khatoni for the year 1964-65. DW-5 had produced the summoned record who had deposed that pre-consolidation suit land comprised in khasra no.98 which was the new khasra; old khasra was khasra No.288; the pre-consolidation land comprised in khasra No.228 was 2 bighas 14 biswas and after consolidation khasra no.98 was comprised of 1 bigha 12 biswas. In his cross-examination he had admitted that the consolidation of the residential plots was made on the basis of the demand made by the respective individuals.

13. There is no dispute to the proposition that entries in the khatoni do not per se establish ownership. This is a relevant piece of evidence which the court can look into and which the court had rightly done so in decreeing the suit for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Title was not the question before the trial judge and no such issue was also framed in this regard. Para 17 of the impugned judgment which has been highlighted by learned counsel for the appellant has only recorded that the khatoni was a record of rights and was admissible as evidence under the provisions of Section 41 of the said Act; there was a presumption in favour of the person producing that document which was a rebuttable presumption but the defendant/appellant had failed to rebut this presumption. In these circumstances, Section 41 of the said Act had been relied upon in favour of the plaintiff. This is a statutory provision and there is no fault in the impugned judgment qua this proposition.