RSA No. 2891 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 8649-C of 2009 and RSA No. 2891 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: May 14, 2010 Smt. Ratni and others ...... Appellants Versus Rattan Lal and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. N.D.Achint, Advocate for the appellants. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 8649-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded, delay of 270 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 2891 of 2009 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for declaration that they are owners of the land in dispute in terms of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights)Act, 1952. Both the Courts have found that the respondents/their predecessor-in-interest have been in possession of the land since 1907-08 at RSA No. 2891 of 2009(O&M) 2 a nominal rent of Rupees 1 Anna 14 pai (which was the annual Lagaan).The learned Lower Appellate Court also relied upon a Jamabandi for the year 1955-56 wherein the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents were shown to be in cultivating possession of the suit land as Gair Marousi Ba- Sarah Malkaan Ba-Wajah Kast Derina. The following questions have been proposed:- 1. Whether the cultivation of land on batai amounts to ripening the right of maurusi? 2. Whether the impugned decrees and judgments passed by learned courts below are against law? 3. Whether the possession on payment of batai gives right to the party to perfect the title? In this regard learned counsel has argued that the subsequent Jamabandies again showed the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents to be in possession on the basis of batai, however, leaned counsel has not been able to illustrate as to how and in what manner the change was incorporated in the subsequent Jamabandies. In the circumstances findings of the Courts below that the respondents have proved to become owners of the land in dispute since they have been in possession of the suit land for more than 40 years prior to 1952 without any rent, cannot be faulted. Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 14, 2010 sunita