RSA No.1341 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on December 10,2009. Richhpal Singh --Appellant vs. Jaspal Singh and others --Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.L.N.Verma, Advocate, for the appellant Mrs.Rupinder Kaur Thind,Advocate,for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) The defendant No.3 is in second appeal in a suit filed by the plaintiff under Section 45 of Punjab Land Revenue Act read with Section 34 of Specific Relief Act for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The case set up by the plaintiff Jaspal Singh is that he is owner in possession of a pucca house constructed on an area measuring 2 kanals 5 marlas comprised in Rect. No.99, killa No.4/3 as per jamabandi for the year 1989-90 situated in village Amritsar, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa. Defendant No.1. Sajjan Singh was owner in possession of 566/1114 share in agricultural land measuring 55 kanals 14 marlas comprised in Rect. No.70 killa No.11 (8-0), 20 (8-0),21 (8-0), Rect.No. 97 killa No.12 (8-7), RSA No.1341 of 2008 (O&M) 2 Rect No. 98 killa No.1 (8-0), 10 (8-0),11/2 (5-18), 20/1/2 ( 0-10),21/1/2 ( 0- 19) as per jamabandi for the year 1989-90, situated in the revenue estate of same village i.e. Amritsar. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 (Sajjan Singh) exchanged their house and land and then got a decree in Civil Suit No. 492 of 1992 from the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Sirsa on 18.7.1992 by virtue of which the plaintiff became owner in possession of agricultural land. Defendant No.1filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff regarding the said land which was dismissed on 16.10.1992. Defendant No.1. again filed a Civil Suit No.785 of 1992 against the plaintiff and one Virsa Singh, which too, was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.9.1988, against which defendant No.1.(Sajjan Singh) filed appeal No.112 of 1998 which was pending at the time of filing of the present suit, but the appeal was dismissed by learned Addl.District Judge, Sirsa vide his judgment and decree dated 29.7.2002 and in the said suit, defendant No.1. was not held to be owner in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff has further averred that defendants No. 1 to 3 got entered wrong entries in the jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 in respect of the land in question in which defendant No.1.has been shown to be in possession of the land comprised in Rect. No. 98 Killa No. 1 (8-0), Killa No. 10/1 (7-16), Killa No. 11/1 (2-2), Killa No;20/1/1 (4-0), Killa No.21/1/2 (2-4) and defendant No.2 has been shown in possession of land comprised in Rect No.70 Killa No. 11/2 (2-14), 20/1 (2-14) and defendant No.3. has been shown in possession of land comprised in Rect No.98 Killa No. 11/2 /2 ( 5-14),, 20/1/2 (0-10), 21/1/2( (0-19). The plaintiff has further averred that entries of the land in dispute in the names of the defendants have been made unauthorisedly without any authority and against the RSA No.1341 of 2008 (O&M) 3 judgment and decree dated 18.7.1992 vide which the plaintiff was declared owner in possession of the land in dispute. Thus, the plaintiff has sought a decree for declaration to the effect that he is co-owner in possession of the land in dispute in view of judgment and decree dated 18.7.1992 passed by the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Sirsa in Civil Suit No. 492 of 1992 titled as Sajjan Singh Vs. Jaspal Singh. Defendant No.2 did not appear despite service. Therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte. The suit was contested by defendant Nos. 1 and 3. Defendant No. 1 had alleged that correctness of the judgment and decree dated 18.7.1992 passed in Civil suit No.492 of 1992 has also been challenged as the land was never exchanged and story of mutual exchange is wrong and is not binding on the rights of defendant No.1. An appeal filed by defendant No.1 is pending in the Court of Addl.District Judge, Sirsa and that the judgment and decree dated 18.7.1992 was an act of fraud and mis- representation. Defendant No.3 also contested the suit of the plaintiff on similar grounds. He has asserted possession of defendant No.1 over the land in dispute alleging that he is tenant gair marusi under defendant No.1, and has constructed his Dhani over 2 kanals 18 marlas of land out of the land in dispute. He had filed an application for correction of khasra girdawari in respect of the land measuring 25 kanals 13 marlas out of the land in disputes in the Court of Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Ellenabad on 25.1.1995 which was accepted on 29.6.1995 and correction of Khasra Girdawari w.e.f. Rabi 1993 was ordered . Defendant No.1. filed an appeal before District Revenue Officer exercising the powers of the Collector, RSA No.1341 of 2008 (O&M) 4 Sirsa, who vide his order dated 17.1.1996 remanded the case to the lower Court with the direction to visit the spot and pass a speaking order. In compliance thereof, Tehsildar Ellenabad visited the spot on 17.11.1998, enquired about the possession and decided the application on 28.12.1998 holding the possession of defendant No.3. over 25 kanals 13 marlas land out of the suit land. Thus, possession of the plaintiff was denied and that of defendant No.3. was asserted. No replication was filed. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court on 23.12.2002:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration, as prayed for, with consequential relief of permanent injunction ? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 3. Whether suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD 4. Relief: Plaintiff Jaspal Singh himself appeared as PW-1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and documents Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2, copies of judgment and decree dated 29.7.2002 passed in appeal No.112 of 1998/ 2000, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4 copies of judgment and decree dated 28.9.1998 passed in Civil Suit No. 785 of 1992, Ex.P-5 copy of jamabandi for the year 1999-2000, Ex.P-6 copy of mutation No.3112 dated 15.6. 2003 and Ex. P-7 application for copy and mark-A copy of decree dated 18.7.1992 passed in Civil suit No.492 of 1992 RSA No.1341 of 2008 (O&M) 5 On the other hand, no evidence was led by the defendants despite availing opportunities. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree, only defendant no.3. has come up in appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that performa respondent No.2 who is owner of the land in dispute is recorded in possession of the entire land including the area measuring 7 kanals 3 marlas under the tenancy of the appellant who on coming to know about wrong entries in the revenue record filed an application dated 25.1.1995 before the Assistant Collector IInd Class, Sirsa, seeking correction of khasra girdawaris of land measuring 25 kanals 12 marlas including 7 kanals 3 marlas and the wrong entries mentioned in Khasra Girdawari from Rabi 1993 was ordered to be corrected in favour of the appellant. Performa respondent No.2. filed an appeal against the order dated 29.6.1995 before the District Revenue Officer exercising the powers of Collector, Sirsa, who allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to Assistant Collector IInd Class, Sirsa, for fresh decision vide his order dated 17.1.1996. The Assistant Collector IInd Class, Sirsa, inspected the site on 17.11.1998 and after extensive enquiries found the appellant to be in actual physical possession allowed the application on 28.12.1998 in his favour. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that admittedly, defendant No.2. has been proceeded against ex- parte as he did not choose to contest the suit. Undisputedly, the defendants did not lead any evidence inspite of availing several opportunities. Thus, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that in the absence of any evidence on record RSA No.1341 of 2008 (O&M) 6 on behalf of the defendants, pleadings in the plaint cannot be accepted. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. There is no dispute that defendant No.2. did not choose to contest the suit and remained ex-parte for the reasons best known to him. Moreover, there is no evidence led by the defendants in support of their case set up in the written statement and it is now well settled that the pleadings cannot take the place of proof, therefore, in the absence of any evidence on record which can prove pleadings on record, no order could be passed in favour of the defendants. Consequently, I do not find any error in the judgment and decree of the Courts below as no question muchless substantial is involved in the present appeal which needs to be adjudicated, as such the appeal is hereby dismissed, though without any order as to costs. December 10,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge