RSA No.1023 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1023 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:November 11, 2009 Lachhman Singh and another ...........Appellants Versus Shivala Vakya Gram Rania and other ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Amarjeet Markan, Advocate for the respondents ** Sabina, J. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 11.1.2005. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. The facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional District Judge in paras 1 to 3 of its judgment, read as under:- “1. Briefly stated, case of appellants was as follows:- Appellants claims to be in possession of suit land as detailed in the plaint for the last many years as `gair marusi'. Revenue record shows respondent no.1 as owner of suit land. Appellants allege that respondent no.1 is only a “Pattedar Duami” (lessee) of the RSA No.1023 of 2008 (O&M) 2 suit land. Appellants claim that in civil suit no.817 of 1963 titled as “Shivalya situated at village Rania Versus Gram Sabha Gram Panchayat Rania”, Sub Judge II Class, Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.1964 had declared respondent no.1 as “Pattedar Duami” qua the suit land. On the basis of abovesaid judgment and decree dated 29.10.1964, requisite mutation no. 3614 dated 8.3.1967 had been sanctioned in favour of respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 is stated to have filed an application before Assistant Collector, I Grade Ellenabad seeking the eviction of appellants from the suit land. Through present suit, appellants sought a decree of declaration that respondent no.1 is not the owner of suit land and impugned mutation no.3614 sanctioned on 8.3.1967 along with relevant revenue records relating to suit land are wrong, illegal and are liable to be set aside and respondent no.1 has no right to initiate any proceedings against the appellants before any Authority or and Court. Appellants also sought a permanent injunction restraining respondents from interfering with their possession over the suit land in any manner. 2. Respondent no.1 contested the suit by filing a written statement. Respondent no.1 admitted that it had been declared as “Pattedar Dwam” qua the suit land vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.1964 of a civil court. Respondent no.1 asserted that in the eyes of law, it is owner of land in dispute. Respondent no.1 claimed that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenants between it and appellants. Respondent no.1 pointed out that vide order dated 14.10.1997, Assistant Collector I Grade, Ellenabad RSA No.1023 of 2008 (O&M) 3 ordered the ejectment of appellants from the suit land. Appeal filed by appellants against the abovesaid order of Assistant Collector I Grade Ellenabad is said to have been dismissed by Collector, Sirsa vide order dated 10.11.1998. Respondent no.1 prayed that suit of appellants be dismissed. 3. Appellants filed a replication reiterating their averments and controverting those of respondent no.1” On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the defendant-Shivala Vakya Gram Rania is owner of the land or not?OPP 2.Whether the mutation no.3614 on the basis of judgment and decree dated 29.10.1964 is wrong as alleged?OPP 3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction or not?OPP 4.Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is time barred ?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have estopped from filing the present suit by own act and conduct?OPD 6. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that defendant No.1 was not owner of the suit land. Consequently, mutation no. 3614 sanctioned in favour of defendant No.1 on the basis of judgment and decree dated 29.10.1964 in Civil Suit No. 817 of 1963 was wrong. As per mutation in question, defendant was shown as owner of the suit land. Plaintiffs had RSA No.1023 of 2008 (O&M) 4 been inducted as a tenant in the suit land after the mutation was sanctioned in favour of defendant as owner. The Courts below, after appreciating the revenue record, placed on the file have observed that in the revenue record i.e. copies of jamabandies and khasra girdawaries, defendants were shown as owners of the suit land whereas the plaintiffs were described as tenant on 1/3rd batai. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 reads as under:- "No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the license of the person in possession thereof shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such license was given". Thus, as per the said provisions, a tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord. The Assistant Collector Grade I vide order dated 14.10.1997 ordered the ejectment of the appellants from the suit land. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the said ejectment order was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 10.11.1998. Exhibit D9 is the copy of the order dated 31.1.2001 wherein the plaintiffs had accepted the ownership of the defendant. The said order as reproduced in the judgment of the trial Court reads as under:- "1. This is no stage for the petitioners to contend that Shivala Vakya Talab Rania is not owner of the disputed land once the revenue entries since jamabandi of 1920, Exhibit P11 hold the respondent institution as a full fledged owner and the petitioners RSA No.1023 of 2008 (O&M) 5 have accepted the situation as such through their forefathers. 2.The respondents Sahab Ram and Surjit Singh, have accepted themselves as tenants on the disputed land and Shivala Vakya Talab Rania as owner in a statement before ACIG and, therefore, the petitioners cannot go against their own admission. Resjudicata is applicable to them. 3. Whether the surplus law is operative and not operative qua the land in dispute is an issue with Collector, surplus where the issue has been raised already and as per respondent, it has been already decided in their favour in the year 1999 (dated 28.7.1999 (Exhibit-A) 4. The tenant has no locus standi to deny the landlord tenant relationship once he has been paying Batai himself and through his forefather and therefore the reference of the civil courts here and there as quoted by the petitioners cannot wipe out his admission of the tenancy as discussed above. Moreover the parties upto the level of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court never challenged the fact of Shivala being a Dwami or half owner and what has not been challenged upto the level of Punjab & Haryana High Court, cannot be raised afresh now. Therefore, on the basis of above findings of this court, it is held that Mahant Dutt Gir as per mutation no.14141, decided on 19.3.1996, Exhibit P10 was fully competent to file application under Form K-1 and decisions of the Ld.ACIG, Elenabad, Ld. Collector Sirsa and Ld. Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar are perfectly maintainable on law and facts. The RSA No.1023 of 2008 (O&M) 6 petitioners already own land to the extent of 5 standard Acres and they deserve no settlement n the surplus land. In view of the fact that there has been plenty of violence and threats noticed on the land of respondent by different tenants, in the past, this court orders that Collector, Sirsa, S.P.Sirsa and ACIG. Ellenabad would ensure the implementation of the orders of the Revenue Court under Form K-1 by 30.4.2001 and if necessary with police help" In these circumstances, both the Courts had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge November 11, 2009 arya