RSA No.4476 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on December 01,2009. Chhota Lal @ Chhotu and others -- Appellants vs. Ramji Lal and others --Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar,Advocate, for the appellants. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) The plaintiffs are in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby their suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed. The case set up by the plaintiffs is that they along with defendant No.1.are in joint cultivating possession of agriculture land measuring 47 kanals 11 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Ranoli, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari, which is shamlat land of proprietors having old numbers prior to consolidation bearing khasra No. 116 (2-13), 914/187 (2-14), 954/187 min (1-3) total measuring 6 Bighas 10 Biswas and was being cultivated by old tenants i.e. Mela, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 3 as well as Heta sons of Prana of their village on payment of land revenue only. Heta was issueless. Mela and Heta have died leaving plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 RSA No.4476 of 2009 (O&M) 2 and 3, who have inherited his tenancy rights. It is further averred that defendant No.3 surrendered his tenancy rights to the plaintiffs who became tenant to the extent of 3/4th share and defendant No.1. remained tenant of 1/4th share. It is alleged that defendant No.1 being an influential person got recorded his sole cultivation over the suit land without any notice or knowledge of the plaintiffs in the revenue record despite the fact that the plaintiffs remained in physical possession jointly with defendant No.1 and thus the entries of cultivation in the revenue records, solely in the name of defendant No.1 are illegal, void, without jurisdiction and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs. It is also averred that when cleverness of defendant No.1. came to their notice in the year 1997, they submitted an application for correction of revenue entries in their favour but the revenue officers expressed their inability to correct the wrong entries which had already been incorporated in the jamabandi. Therefore, the said application was withdrawn by the plaintiffs. It is further averred that the plaintiffs have asked the defendants many a times to admit their joint possession to the extent of ¾th share of their tenancy and get the revenue records rectified accordingly but they avoided the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately, turned down the request, which led to the filing of the present suit. Defendant No.1 came forward to contest the suit whereas defendant Nos. 2 and 3 chose to remain absent and were thus, proceeded against ex-parte. Defendant No.1. had averred that he has been in cultivating possession of the entire suit land. It was found that suit land was previously comprised in Khasra No. 116 (2-13),914/187 (2-14) and 954/187 min (1-3) total measuring 6 Bighas 10 Biswas. It has been denied that defendant No.1 had ever relinquished his tenancy rights in favour of the plaintiffs. It was alleged that the plaintiffs had moved an application for correction of RSA No.4476 of 2009 (O&M) 3 khasra girdawaris before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bawal but later on withdrew the application after receiving the spot inspection report in favour of defendant No.1. The plaintiffs filed replication. On 20.9.2003, on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. are joint tenant in possession of the suit land ? OPP 2,.Whether the defendant No.3. had surrendered his tenancy rights in favour of the plaintiffs and thus plaintiffs became joint tenants in possession to the extent of 3/4th share of the suit land as alleged in para No. 2 of the plaint ? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as alleged ? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit ?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit ?OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ?OPD 7. Whether the defendant No.1. is the sold tenant at will over the suit land and had been exclusively cultivating the suit land for the last 40 years as such, if so what effect ?OPD 8. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the suit as alleged ? OPD. 9. Relief: The trial Court decided issue Nos. 1 to 3 against the plaintiffs, issues Nos. 4 and 5 were decided in favour of defendant No.1 and 6 and 7 were RSA No.4476 of 2009 (O&M) 4 decided against defendant No.1. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. Similarly, an appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by learned Addl.District Judge, Rewari, vide his order dated 08.8.2009. It has been observed that there is no cogent evidence led by the plaintiffs to show that the suit land measuring 47 kanals 11 marlas was allotted during consolidation proceedings in lieu of old khasra girdawaris. Jamabandi for the year 1959-60 Ex.PX/4 was prepared for the first time after consolidation of holdings in the village in which Gram Panchayat has been shown to be the owner in possession of the suit land. Neither the plaintiffs nor defendant Nos. 1 and 3 were found recorded in cultivating possession. In the jamabandi for the year 1960-61 Ex.PX/5 the plaintiffs have not been shown in cultivating possession, therefore, continuity of possession was not presumed in their favour. It was observed that defendant No.1. has successfully shown his exclusive cultivating possession over the suit land right from 1964-65 till date as it was the case of the plaintiffs that they filed an application for correction of khasra girdawari entries but withdrew the said application vide order dated 15.4.1999 passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bawal (Ex.DW3/C). The said application was withdrawn not because of some technical defect but due to the fact that the plaintiffs were not found in cultivating possession of the suit land. The certified copy of inspection report has been placed on record as Ex.DW3/B/1 In nutshell, it has been found as a matter of fact that the plaintiffs have failed on all counts to prove the averments made in the plaint that in lieu of old khasra numbers, the present land has been allotted to them in which they have been continuously in cultivating possession after having share of defendant No.3. On the contrary, defendant No.1 has been successful by leading RSA No.4476 of 2009 (O&M) 5 documentary evidence that he is in exclusive cultivating possession right from 1964-65 till date. In the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellants has raised following questions of law:- (i) Whether the plaintiffs-appellants along with Respondent No.1. Are joint tenants in possession of the suit land and whether the findings recorded by both the courts below are based son wrong appreciation of evidence and the same are perverse and not borne from the records ? (ii) Whether after the consideration, the number and description of the old holdings changed and in fact, it is the predecessors of the plaintiff-appellants who were in cultivating possession of the suit land ? The aforesaid questions are of facts which have already been decided by both the Courts below. The appellants/plaintiffs have failed to raise any meaningful argument in order to demolish the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below nor could they raise any question of law much-less substantial for consideration of this Court in this second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is hereby dismissed in limine ,though without any order as to costs. December 01,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge