R.S.A. No.2338 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.2338 of 2008 Date of Decision:15.10.2008 Om Parkash and others .....Appellants Vs. Amar Nath and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the appellants. **** HARBANS LAL, J. The genesis of the case is that the plaintiffs are the sons of Gopal son of Ghasitu. Their other brother, namely, Nand Lal had died issueless and widowless about 40 years ago. Their mother pre-deceased Nand Lal. Their other brother Babu Ram has also breathed his last issueless & widowless on 19.9.1994. The plaintiffs and their brothers have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit land of which land revenue was also assessed in their names. The possession of the suit land qua one half share was being recorded in their names, whereas the remaining half share was being recorded in the name of Fateh Chand. After his death, Babu Ram and Nand Lal are succeeded by the plaintiffs, who are in exclusive possession of part of the suit land. The defendant was permitted to cultivate the suit land as tenant on 1/3rd batai under the plaintiffs and their deceased predecessors-in-interest since 1965. He has illegally procured entries in the revenue record in his name by conniving with the revenue officials by posing himself to be “Gair Dakhilkar Billa Lagan” instead of “Gair Dakhilkar” on 1/3rd batai under the plaintiffs. R.S.A. No.2338 of 2008 -2- These entries being baseless are not binding on the possessory rights of the plaintiffs. The same need to be corrected by substituting the words “Billa Lagan” by 1/3rd batai `Tehat Kabzaan' the plaintiffs. The defendant was requested number of times to get these entries corrected and refrain from changing the nature or cutting/ removing any trees standing on the suit land, but of no avail. On these allegations, the suit has been filed for correction of entries in the revenue record. In his written statement, the defendant has alleged that he is in possession of the suit land without payment of rent or batai and his possession is continuous, open and hostile to the true owners as well as the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest. He has matured his adverse possession into ownership. Lastly, it has been prayed that the suit may be dismissed. The following issues were framed:- 1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP 2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for? OPP 3) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file this suit? OPD 4) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6) Relief. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pathankot decreed the suit for declaration as prayed for with R.S.A. No.2338 of 2008 -3- consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating, creating any charge or changing the nature of the suit land and also from cutting/ removing any tree standing in the suit land vide his judgment/ decree dated 4.2.1997. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the defendant went in appeal, which has also been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide his judgment and decree dated 9.4.2008. Being undaunted and dissatisfied therewith, the defendant- appellants have preferred this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the findings returned by both the Courts below with due care and circumspection. Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants urged with full force that the appellant/ defendant as per entries in the jamabandi for the year 1965/66 onwards has been recorded as “Gair Dakhilkar Billa Lagan” i.e., without payment of rent and thus, the jamabndies Ex.P.1 to P.2 too support his case. He further puts that in the absence of any lease deed or rent deed, the landlord cannot claim the rent and furthermore, the appellant- defendant being in adverse possession has perfected his title qua the land in dispute. As such, both the Courts below have gravely erred in decreeing the suit. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with these submissions. As is borne out from the judgment recorded by the learned trial Court, the defendant himself admitted Amar Singh etc. to be the owners of the suit land as well as the continuous possession of the plaintiffs over the disputed land. The defendant having been inducted as a tenant, his possession was permissive which could never be converted into adverse one. Once a tenant is always a tenant. As observed by the learned R.S.A. No.2338 of 2008 -4- trial Court, the defendant has been recorded in occupation of the suit land as tenant at will. In the rent column of the jamabandi, the possession has been reflected as “Billa Lagan”. The column of rent as well as cultivation are to be read together for determining the nature of possession of the occupant. The non-payment of rent ipso-facto cannot convert the permissive possession into adverse possession. The defendant though tenant had denied the title of the landlord. Consequently, no fault can be found with the concurrent findings returned by both the Courts below. More to the point, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed in limine. October 15, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE