Regular Second Appeal No. 1821 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1821 of 2004 Date of Order: 20.07.2009 Rati Ram ....Appellant Versus Chatter Singh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. B.S.Tewatia,Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The appellant challenges the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2004, passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, insofar as it reverses the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2003, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, dismissing the appellant's suit in its entirety. The appellant filed a suit claiming to have perfected his title as an occupancy tenant. In addition, the appellant prayed for grant of an injunction to protect his possession. In opposition to the suit, the respondent filed a written statement denying that the appellant was a tenant much less an occupancy tenant who had perfected his right of ownership as an occupancy tenant. After considering the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the plaintiff is a tenant in possession of the suit property detailed and described in para no.1 of the plaint?OPP Regular Second Appeal No. 1821 of 2004 -2- 2. Whether the plaintiff has acquired occupancy rights in the suit property u/s 5 & 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and has become the owner of the suit property by lapse of time?OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4. Whether plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court?OPD 5. Relief." After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court dismissed the suit and held that the appellant had failed to prove his tenancy and as a consequence, his right to be declared as owner having perfected the right of occupancy. However, an injunction was granted by restraining the respondents from interfering in his possession except in due course of law. Aggrieved by the grant of an injunction, the defendant- respondents filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 25.02.2004, the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit in its entirety by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court granting an injunction to the appellant. Counsel for the appellant submits that as the appellant is recorded as tenant in possession, in the jamabandies commencing from the year 1971, the First Appellate Court was not justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. It is submitted that the First Appellate Court has ignored the jamabandies from 1971 to 1977, which clearly refer to the appellant as a tenant in possession. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. I have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgment and decree and express my inability to accede to the argument Regular Second Appeal No. 1821 of 2004 -3- advanced by counsel for the appellant. The revenue entries record the possession of the appellant as a “gair marusi”. The expression “gair marusi”, in the absence of any entry in column no.9 of a jamabandi, setting out the rate or nature of rent, raises a inference of unauthorised occupation. However, a person recorded as a “gair marusi” may rebutt this presumption by producing other evidence to establish the nature of his possession. The jamabandies for the years 1971-1977 record the appellant as a “Gair Marusi”. Column No.9 of the jamabandi is silent as to the rate of rent . The appellant has failed to adduce any evidence cogent or otherwise in support of his plea that he is a tenant much less an occupancy tenant. The courts below, therefore, rightly held that the appellant has failed to establish his status as a tenant and the appellate court rightly held that he was an unauthorised occupant not entitled to the grant of a prohibitory injunction. The equitable jurisdiction of injunctions cannot be exercised in favour of tress-passers or unauthorised occupants. As regards the question of law framed by counsel for the appellant, the appellant has failed to establish his plea of tenancy much less the plea of occupancy tenancy. The mere fact that the appellant is recorded in possession, would not entitle him to the grant of an injunction and, therefore, the First Appellate Court did not commit any error in vacating the injunction granted by the trial court. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed. July 20, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE