RSA No. 280 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 280 of 2010 Date of Decision : April 21, 2011 Jagdish and others ...... Appellants Versus Siri Ram and others ...... Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present : Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate, for the appellants. **** L.N. Mittal, J (Oral) Plaintiffs, who have partly succeeded in the Courts below, have filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiffs sought twin reliefs in the suit. The plaintiffs claimed to be owners in possession of land measuring 54 kanals 1 marla and land measuring 16 kanals 8 marlas purchased by way of two separate sale deeds dated 4.7.1975. Suit regarding the said relief has been decreed by the Courts below. Plaintiffs also claimed to have become owners of 22 kanals 19 marlas land having acquired occupancy rights therein. The plaintiffs’ claim is that they were inducted as tenants over the said land by the owners more than 60 years prior to filing the suit on nominal rent which was never increased and there was a promise not to eject them and, therefore, they RSA No. 280 of 2010 2 acquired occupancy rights in the said land and have become owners thereof. This part of the claim has not been accepted by the Courts below. Therefore, plaintiffs have filed the instant second appeal regarding the said part of claim. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case. As per revenue record, Chandrawali and Ram Kaur were tenants over the suit land measuring 22 kanals 19 marlas whereas plaintiffs were sub tenants under them. Siri Niwas plaintiff No.6 as P.W.1 admitted that previously Baru etc. were owners of the aforesaid land and that plaintiffs did not take the said land for cultivation from the said owners. Siri Niwas also admitted that earlier Chandrawali and Ram Kaur etc. were ‘gair marusi’ tenants over the said land without payment of any lagan. In view of these admissions by plaintiff No.6 himself, it becomes manifest that plaintiffs were never inducted as tenants in the aforesaid land by the owners and, on the other hand, plaintiffs were sub-tenants under Chandrawali and Ram Kaur etc, who were tenants of the said land. Consequently, plaintiffs have been rightly non-suited regarding this part of the claim. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that Chandrawali and Ram Kaur became owners of the aforesaid land on account of exchange and, therefore, plaintiffs/appellants became direct tenants under the said owners and acquired occupancy rights and became owners of this land also. The contention although attractive on first blush, cannot be accepted. Decree Ex.P-2 dated 31.7.1972 has been produced whereby Chandrawali and Ram Kaur became owners of this land on the basis of compromise dated 31.7.1972. The said compromise has not been produced nor there is any document regarding alleged exchange of any other land by RSA No. 280 of 2010 3 Chandrawali and Ram Kaur with this land. Consequently, Chandrawali and Ram Kaur became owners of this land for the first time on 31.7.1972. The instant suit was instituted on 6.3.1999. Consequently, plaintiffs remained as tenants under Chandrawali and Ram Kaur for less than 27 years before the filing of the suit. However, Section 5(2) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 provides that if a tenant has continuously occupied the land for 30 years on certain conditions, then presumption of occupancy rights under Section 5(1) (a) of the said Act can be raised. In the instant case, the said condition is not satisfied as the plaintiffs were not tenants under Chandrawali and Ram Kaur for 30 years prior to filing of the suit. Consequently, this claim of the plaintiffs has been rightly negatived by the Courts below. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below against the plaintiffs regarding aforesaid part of their claim is fully justified by the evidence on record. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Therefore, the said finding does not call for interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. (L.N. Mittal) Judge April 21, 2011 Anand