CR No.254 of 2009 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.254 of 2009 (O & M) Date of decision: 07.04.2010 Mani Ram .. Petitioner Versus Mirza and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the respondent. . . . AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed against the order of the learned Executing Court declining police help to the petitioner to harvest the paddy crop over 5 kanals of land. Originally, the father of the petitioner was the tenant of the entire land measuring 10 kanals. After his death, the tenancy was inherited by the petitioner and his brother. Subsequently, the brother of the petitioner also died leaving behind his widow. During the interregnum, the original owner Mitar Sain suffered a decree in favour of the respondent No.1. The petitioner and Vidya Devi filed a suit for declaration challenging that decree on the ground of fraud and also for permanent injunction for restraining the respondent no.1 from interfering in their possession over the suit land. The Court below rejected the prayer for declaration on two grounds; firstly, that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the decree suffered by the owner in favour of the respondent No.1 and secondly, that even on merits the petitioner and Vidya Devi were not able to prove any allegation of fraud. During the pendency of the suit, CR No.254 of 2009 (O & M) ::2:: Vidya Devi relinquished her tenancy rights in favour of the respondent No.1 and consequently, dropped out of the proceedings. Against the decree of the Trial Court only the petitioner went up in appeal. In appeal, the learned First Appellate Court held as follows : “8. So far as the possessory right of the plaintiff are concerned, the copy of order dated 17.12.2007 passed in civil appeal No.191 of 2006 is a relevant fact where it was held that Mani Ram was in possession of the disputed property as tenant. That order would also operate as resjudicata against present defendant No.1 & 3 because the legal heirs of defendant No.1 and Shakil Mohammad defendant No.3 were party to that suit. 9. It is, therefore, accordingly held that the plaintiff has no locus standi to challenge the decree and even otherwise has not been able to prove that same was a result of fraud as alleged. He is in possession of the suit property as tenant after relinquishment of right by Vidya Devi and the respondents shall not dispossess him except in due course of law”. It is after this decree that the present application was filed praying that he had sowed paddy but the respondent No.1 was not permitting him to harvest the crop. The learned Executing Court held that the petitioner was entitled to cut and remove the crop to the extent on half share from the total land measuring 10 Kanals and consequently, afforded him police help only to that extent. However, no reason was given by the Trial Court as to why the police help was declined for the remaining half share even in the face of the finding of the learned Lower Appellate Court as mentioned above. Learned counsel has relied upon the Judgment of CR No.254 of 2009 (O & M) ::3:: this Court in JIT SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. CHANAN SINGH (1966, P.L.J., 246), wherein it was held as follows:- “As the tenancy is joint, the relinquishment by some of joint tenants will not in any manner jeopardise the interest of the remaining joint tenants. They will continue to be tenants of the entire tenancy, the tenancy being joint and indivisible. The plaintiffs could only succeed if they could show that the defendants were trespassers. That in the circumstances of the present case is not established”. In fact, it was on the basis of this judgment that the learned Lower Appellate Court had upheld the claim of the petitioner in the appeal. Consequently, the order of the learned Executing Court which ignored the finding of the learned Appellate Court and also gave no reason for not extending the benefit of police help for the entire land has to be set aside. Which brings me to the next question; viz. what relief can be granted to the petitioner since the crop in regard to which the application was filed has been now harvested ? In the circumstances, the only relief which can be granted to the petitioner is that he can claim the monetary value of the crop. He would be entitled to claim the amount thereof from the respondent No.1. Not only that, he would also be entitled to claim mesne profits from the respondent No.1 till such time as he is put back into possession. Consequently, the present petition stands allowed in the above terms. April 07, 2010 sukhpreet (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE