RSA No.1371 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 1371 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.01.2011 Samunder Singh .....Appellant Versus Gram Panchayat and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Samunder filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff was that as per the jamabandi for the year 1906-07, Sunda Ram was in possession of the suit land as gair marusi . In the column of ownership, the suit land was described as shamlat deh. Plaintiff had been paying annual rent of ` 7/-. Plaintiff further claimed that in the jamabandi for the year 1968-69, the revenue authorities mistakenly recorded the suit land as shamlat deh and in the column of cultivation, Janglee and Sheotaj sons of Sunda Ram were reflected as co-sharers instead of gair marusi. The said error committed by the revenue authorities was not binding on RSA No.1371 of 2010 2 the rights of the plaintiff. Gram Panchayat had ceased to be owner in possession of the suit property and the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property by way of implied agreement not to eject the gair marusi tenant. Defendant No.1 in its written statement claimed that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit. It was further claimed that the suit property was to be used for the benefit of Gram Panchayat but the plaintiff was in illegal possession of the suit property. Plaintiff had never paid any rent to the Gram Panchayat. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration that he has acquired light of occupancy after 1952 with regard to and mentioned in para no.1 of the plaint and has become its owner and consequently entitled for the rectification of revenue record accordingly?OPP 2. In case issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, in case during pendency of the suit contesting defendants succeed in their illegal design, whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction or in alternative mandatory injunction on the grounds taken in the plaint if so to what effect?OPP 3. Whether the present suit of plaintiff is not maintainable?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ?OPD 6.Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his own act and conduct?OPD RSA No.1371 of 2010 3 7.Whether the plaintiff has not affixed the ad-valorem court fee?OPD 8.Relief.” The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 6.4.2009 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was partly decreed by the Additional District Judge, Rewari and defendant No.1 was restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land except in due course of law. The remaining claim of the plaintiff that he be declared owner of the suit land was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, initially, Sunda son of Gungan was recorded as gair marusi in the column of cultivation in the revenue record from 1906-07 onwards. The entry in the column of ownership was shamlat deh. Thereafter, after the consolidation proceedings similar entries were reflected in the jamanadies for the year 1963-64. However, from the year 1968-69, the entries in the column of ownership was reflected as shamlat deh and Janglee and Sheotaj sons of Gungan were reflected as co-sharers in the suit land. Thereafter, similar entries continued in the succeeding jamabandies. Plaintiff had failed to establish that the suit land had been given for cultivation to the ancestors of the plaintiff by the proprietors of the shamlat deh. Plaintiff or his successors have been recorded in the column of cultivation as co-sharers in equal shares from the year 1968-69 onwards in the revenue record. The plea of the plaintiff is RSA No.1371 of 2010 4 that the suit land was banjar kadim and had been given to the ancestors of the plaintiff by the proprietor of the village and it was agreed that in case the ancestors of the plaintiff made the land cultivable then the proprietor of the village would not eject the ancestors of the plaintiff of the suit land. However, the fact that the suit land was banjar kadim is not reflected in the revenue record. The learned Additional District Judge while appreciating the evidence on record has given a finding of fact that the plaintiff was not in cultivating possession of the suit land as a tenant but in cultivating possession of the suit land as co-sharer and hence, was not entitled to the declaration sought by him. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to convince me that the said finding of fact is not based on evidence on record. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge January 10, 2011 arya