R.S.A. No. 53 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 53 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 11, 2011 Buti Ram @ Jai Parkash Tufan and others …..Appellants Vs. Bir Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the appellants. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the delay in re- filing and filing of the appeal is condoned. Applications stand disposed of. Defendants have preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff- respondents No.1 to 3 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant – appellants from dispossessing the plaintiff- respondents forcibly from the suit land. Plaintiff- respondents No.1 to 3 claimed that they R.S.A. No. 53 of 2011 (O&M) [2] alongwith proforma defendants No.4 to 54 are in cultivating possession of the suit land measuring 42 kanals 12 marlas as tenants on payment of chakota of ` 4.65/- per year since the time of their forefathers. Defendants No1 to 12 are the landlords of the suit land and that they had filed an ejectment petition tilted Jagmal Singh and others Vs. Badam Kaur under Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act in the Court of SDO (C)-cum-A.C. First Grade for ejectment of plaintiffs - respondents in the month of September 1996. The plaintiff- respondents are in cultivating possession of the suit land as tenants. Budh Ram, grand-father of plaintiff- respondents and Jaswant Singh, father of the plaintiffs had expired and that the plaintiffs and proforma defendants are cultivating the suit land as tenants. The tenancy of the plaintiff-respondents was never terminated. Defendants No.1 to 120 had field a petition against the plaintiff- respondents for correction of Khasra Girdwaries in the Court of Tehsildar. The crop of the plaintiffs had been harvested by defendants No.1 to 20, regarding which an FIR No.150 of March 29, 1997 was registered. As defendants No.1 to 27 were allegedly interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction but the defendant- appellants had taken up the plea that suit was not maintainable and that the plaintiffs were estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the suit and that the civil Court had no jurisdiction. The defendant- appellants claimed that grand-father of the plaintiff- respondent had surrendered the possession of the suit land at the time of consolidation, to the defendants and since then the relationship of landlord and tenant ceased to exist and that the defendant- appellants are R.S.A. No. 53 of 2011 (O&M) [3] owners in possession of the suit land. About eight issues were framed out of which the two material issues are (i) Whether plaintiffs- respondents are in cultivating possession of the suit land since the time of their ancestral as alleged and they were entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for and (ii) Whether the plaintiff- respondents had relinquished their rights by surrendering possession of the suit land. The Courts below have arrived at a finding of fact that the plaintiff- respondents have not been ejected by any Court of law and defendants No.1 and 70 have not proved that the plaintiff- respondents had relinquished their rights by surrendering possession of the suit land, as such first issue was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and the abovesaid second issue was decided against the defendants. Mr.P.R. Yadav, learned counsel for the defendant- appellants has vehemently contended that the plaintiff- respondents have not been able to establish their possession on the entire land whereas they have been able to establish their possession only on the land to the extent of 17 kanals and that plaintiff- respondent No.3 Ranbir Singh had admitted in the cross- examination that Tehsildar had found that the defendants are in possession of 25 kanals 12 marlas of land and that the plaintiff were in possession of only 17 kanals of land. Strong reliance was placed upon the order passed by Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, and the agreement Ex.DW1/1 to contend that the plaintiffs are not in possession of 25 kanals 12 marls of land. I have heard counsel for the appellants at length and considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The lower Appellate Court while R.S.A. No. 53 of 2011 (O&M) [4] affirming the judgment of the trial Court on appreciation of evidence relied upon the admissions made by DW1 Ishar, DW3 Hari Ram, DW5 Ram Singh and DW6 Butti Ram and the documents placed on record arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff- respondents are in peaceful possession of the property in dispute and as such they cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the cross- examination of plaintiff- respondent No.3 Ranbir Singh who had admitted that Tehsildar had found that the defendants were found in possession of 17 kanals of land and the plaintiffs had challenged the order of Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, before Collector in which they had succeeded. The trial Court in para 16 held that there was no order of any Court which could show that the plaintiffs- respondents were ever ejected by any Court of laws and that the agreement Ex.DW1/1 relied upon by the defendant- appellants did not bear signatures of the plaintiffs. The document Ex.DW7/1, a petition for ejectment in form L under Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1956 for ejectment of the plaintiff- respondents inter-alia on the ground of non-payment of rent was disposed of vide order dated September 30, 1996, Ex.PX/4 and plaintiffs were directed to deposit the rent. The plaintiffs being tenants had deposited rent vide challan receipts Ex.PX/5. In view of said fact the plaintiffs have proved themselves to be tenants and in cultivating possession of the land in dispute. Reliance of the defendant- appellants on Ex.D1 report of the Tehsildar dated April 15, 1997 finding plaintiff- respondents only in possession of 17 kanals of land and the R.S.A. No. 53 of 2011 (O&M) [5] defendant- appellants in 25 kanals 12 marlas of land is misconceived as in appeal before the Collector vide order dated May 18, 2000 Ex.PX/25 and Ex.PX/26, the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondents was accepted and the appeal preferred by the defendants was dismissed. Plaintiffs were found in possession of the entire suit land. In view of the above concurrent finding of fact given by the Courts below that the plaintiff- respondents alongwith proforma defendants No.4 to 54 are tenants on the suit land does not warrant interference. The judgment and decree passed by the Courts below is hereby affirmed without prejudice to the rights of the defendant- appellants to seek the eviction of the plaintiff- respondents in accordance with law. Dismissed. February 11, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE