R.S.A. No. 3455 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3455 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.4.2009 Karan Singh and others .....Appellants versus Hari Chand and others ....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This regular second appeal filed by plaintiffs No.1 to 4 and 6 to 8 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.9.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, affirming that of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad dated 29.10.2005 whereby the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction was partly decreed holding that they were in possession of the suit land as lessees. Put shortly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they were lessees in possession of the land measuring 3 kanals 6 marlas (West), out of total 12 kanals 7 marlas, forming part of khewat No. 90 min, khatauni No. 171, rectangle R.S.A. No. 3455 of 2007 -2- No.40, killa No.23/2 (4-16), rectangle No.46, killa No. 3/2 (7-11) situated within the revenue estate of village Nacholi, Tehsil and District Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”) in equal shares and that the orders dated 13.11.1990, 3.9.1991, 14.1.1997 and 4.11.1997 passed by the revenue authorities ordering their eviction from the suit land were illegal, null and void and not binding on their rights. A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit land; dispossessing them and from alienating or transferring the same was also sought. It was pleaded that the suit land was given on lease to Shri Lakhan Singh son of Samman Singh, father of plaintiffs No.1 to 4, 6 to 13, grandfather of plaintiffs No. 5 (ii) and (iii) and father-in-law of plaintiff No.5 (i) by the defendants for a period of 99 years from 7.8.1980 to 6.8.2079 vide registered lease deed dated 7.8.1980 on the annual chakota of Rs.50/-. The said Chakota was duly paid by Lakhan Lal till his death and after his death, the plaintiffs had been continuously and regularly paying the same to the defendants but no receipt in token thereof was ever issued by the defendants. It was further pleaded that said Lakhan Lal also raised construction of his house on the suit land in the year 1983 and the plaintiffs were residing in the same and were also cultivating the suit land according to their shares. It was next pleaded that the defendants filed a suit for ejectment against the plaintiffs in the court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ballabgarh in respect of the suit land wherein the plaintiffs were proceeded against ex parte on 13.11.1990 and finally an ex parte order of eviction was passed against them on 3.9.1991. The plaintiffs came to know about the said order on 20.12.1996 and moved R.S.A. No. 3455 of 2007 -3- an application for setting aside the same, but that application was dismissed on 14.1.1997. The appeal filed there-against before the District Collector, Faridabad was also dismissed vide order dated 4.11.1997. According to the plaintiffs, the orders dated 13.11.1990, 3.9.1991, 14.1.1997 and 4.11.1997 were illegal, null and void and not binding on their rights and were liable to be set aside. It was also submitted that since they were continuously in possession of the suit land for more than 17 years, they had become owners of the same by way of adverse possession. The plaintiffs requested the defendants to admit their claim and not to dispossess them from the suit land illegally and forcibly but to no avail and that gave rise to the filing of the suit for declaration and permanent injunction, as mentioned above. Upon notice, defendant No.1 contested the suit and filed a written statement raising various preliminary objections therein. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs were not the lessees on the suit land any more as they had not paid the Chakota money to the defendant for the last several years and the lease in their favour had automatically been cancelled as per law. It was further pleaded that the construction was raised by the plaintiffs in the year 1987, during the operation of the stay order passed in favour of the defendant by a Civil Court on 13.11.1987 and that defendant No.1 was owner of the suit land. It was also pleaded that the orders and proceedings challenged by the plaintiffs in the present suit were legal and valid. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. It may be noticed here that during the pendency of the suit, Hari Chand- defendant No.1 expired and vide order dated 18.5.2001, Narender R.S.A. No. 3455 of 2007 -4- Singh was impleaded as his legal heir on an application moved by him. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were the lessees in possession of the suit land but pursuant to the eviction order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ballabgarh and upheld by the District Collector, Faridabad, in appeal, they had no right to remain in possession of the suit land. It was further held that the orders dated 13.11.1990, 3.9.1991 and 4.11.1997 passed by the revenue authorities were legal and binding on the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.2005 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs to the extent that they were declared to be lessees in possession of the suit land but the reliefs of declaration that they had become owner of the suit land by adverse possession and for permanent injunction claimed by them were declined. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs approached the lower appellant Court which vide judgment and decree dated 15.9.2007 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellants has made an endeavour to persuade this Court to re-appreciate the evidence available on record so as to differ with the findings recorded by the courts below but the same is not permissible in view of the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, he could not point out any illegality or perversity in the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below R.S.A. No. 3455 of 2007 -5- warranting interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. Both the Courts have returned concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land as lessees but they were not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction claimed by them against the owner after an order of eviction dated 3.9.1991 had been passed against them. Further by correctly appreciating the material available on the record, both the courts have rightly held that the orders dated 13.11.1990, 3.9.1991 and 4.11.1997 having been passed by the competent revenue authorities were legal and binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs and these findings do not call for any interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. No question of law much less the substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court particularly when the plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence to show that they had not defaulted in payment of annual Chakota and that the opportunity of payment of Chakota was not given to them by the revenue authorities. In view of what has been stated above, the present appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. April 20, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE