R.S.A. No. 4533 of 2009 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- R.S.A. No. 4533 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 4.12.2009 Surjan Singh .... Appellant. Versus Piarey Lal ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA. Present:- Mr. R.M.Singh, Advocate, with the appellant. Sabina (J) Plaintiff- Piarey Lal filed a suit for declaration and possession of Agricultral land. Vide judgment and decree dated 31.1.2008, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Palwal. Aggrieved by the same, defendant-Surjan Singh filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Addl. District Judge, Faridabad, vide judgment and decree dated 9.3.2009. Hence the present appeal by the defendant-appellant Surjan Singh. The facts of the case in brief, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para No. 2 to 4 of its judgment read as under:- “2. Shri Pyare Lal claimed to be owner of agricultural land comprised in Khewat No. 76 Khatoni No. 136 Rec.No.10, Killa No. 21 Min 22, Rec. No.14, Killage No. 2,3,8,9/1, 13 and 14/2 measuring 49 kanals 0 Marlas situtated within the revenue estate of village Jhuppi Tehsil Palwal District Faridabad (hereinafter to be referred as suit land). Stating his pedigree R.S.A. No. 4533 of 2009 (O&M) table, he mentioned that Chhote Lal was his grand father, who had two sons and two daughters namely Suraj Mal, Durga Parshad, Smt. Suraj Mukhi and Smt. Jwala Devi. While his paternal uncle Shri Suraj Mal died issueless on 11.7.1997 at Delhi, his paternal aunt Smt. Suraj Mukhi died issueless on 7.4.1970 at Bareli and other paternal aunt Smt. Jwala Devi also expired issueless. He was the only son of Shri Durga Parshad, who also died on 18.3.1988 at Delhi and hence he inherited the total suit land. 3. It is further alleged that father of the defendant was given possession of the suit land as licencee about 8 years ago. The licence had been revoked by him on 11.10.1999 and since then the defendant is in illegal and unauthorised possession of the suit land. He requested him to admit his claim and hand over actual physical possession of the suit land, but as he refused, the present suit was filed. 4. Defendant appeared and contested the suit. In the written statement filed by him, preliminary objections with regard to maintainablility of the suit, cause of action, locus-standi of the the plaintiff and estoppal etc., were raised. Replying parawise, the defendant denied that plaintiff is owner or is entitled to possession of the suit land. According to him, the suit land was given on rent to his predecessor in interest about more than 40 years ago and since then, earlier his father and after him he had been in cultivating possession on payment of fixed rent being gair marusi tenant, and by virtue of long possession he had acquired ownership rights in the suit land, for declaration of which he has already filed a civil suit which is pending before learned Civil Judge, Palwal. Denying the claim of the plaintiff in toto and submitting that he or his father had never relinquished possession, a prayer for dismissal of the suit with costs was made. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed R.S.A. No. 4533 of 2009 (O&M) by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiff is owner in possession of the agricultural land mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint?OPP 2. If issue no.1 is decided in affirmative as to what effect?OPP 3. whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4. whether plaintiff is estopped by his own acts and conduct from filing the present suit?OPD. 5. Relief.” After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he be declared owner in possession of the land in dispute. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff appeared in the witness box himself as PW-1 and also tendered in evidence, the revenue record. The defendant on the other hand failed to lead any evidence. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence on record, have given a finding of fact that on the basis of revenue record available on the file plaintiff was exclusive owner of the suit land. Defendant was in possession of the suit land as a licencee. Defendant had failed to establish that he had ever paid any rent to the plaintiff. Licence of the defendant stood terminated. An ejectment petition was filed by the predecessor in the interest of the plaintiff on the ground that defendant had sublet the suit land vide order dated 12.5.1977. Ejectment was ordered against the defendant and his sub-lettee. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly decreed the R.S.A. No. 4533 of 2009 (O&M) suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accoringly, the same is dismissed. December 4, 2009 (Sabina) tripti Judge