CWP No. 19931 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 19931 of 2004 Date of decision: 19.3.2008 Dalip Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Financial Commissioner Taxation, Punjab and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.GAREWAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. G.R. Bajaj, Advocate, for respondent 5. K.S.GAREWAL, J. This petition has been filed by Dalip Singh and five others whose ancestor Albel Singh was owner of 20 kanals 18 marlas of land in Narangwal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. Albel Singh's holding was inherited by his three sons and a daughter, namely, Dalip Singh, Pritam Singh, Surjit Singh and Dalip Kaur, each of whom were entitled to 5 kanals 4-1/2 marlas. Gurdev Singh-respondent 5 purchased the share of Pritam Singh on December 17, 1978 but it took Gurdev Singh 20 years to get possession of his share through partition. After securing possession, Gurdev Singh served a notice dated June 10, 1999 for rendition of accounts of the share of produce from the petitioners. He later filed a suit under CWP No. 19931 of 2004 2 Section 77 (3) (k) of the Punjab Tenancy Act before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade in 1999 for rendition of accounts. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade on April 16, 2001 came to the conclusion on the basis of the finding recorded on 10 issues and evidence presented by the parties that defendants (petitioners herein) had been in wrongful possession of the property for 20 years, therefore, Gurdev Singh was entitled to receive Rs. 83,818/- with 12% interest from the date of the suit till realization of the decreetal amount. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector which was dismissed on June 11, 2002. The petitioners' revision before the Commissioner was also dismissed on January 30, 2003 and further revision before the Financial Commissioner was dismissed on October 19, 2004. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the landlord could not get the whole produce because cultivators were entitled to receive 2/3rd share. Share of produce or rent could not be claimed for more than three years preceding the date of filing of the suit and the co- sharer could only claim his share of the produce, in the present case his share was 1/4th of 20 kanals 18 marlas. The history of litigation between the petitioners and Gurdev Singh has been re-counted in the order of the Assistant Collector and may be briefly recapitulated. Gurdev Singh purchased the share of Pritam Singh son of Albel Singh (brother of Dalip Singh-petitioner 1) through sale deed dated December 7, 1978. Dalip Singh's suit for permanent injunction to restrain Gurdev Singh and another from forcibly dispossessing him was decreed in his favour by the learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Ludhiana. Gurdev Singh's appeal was also dismissed but Gurdev Singh was directed to take CWP No. 19931 of 2004 3 appropriate steps for partition of the joint holdings and recovery of possession in due course of law. Gurdev Singh initiated partition proceedings on June 15, 1981 which travelled through the hierarchy of revenue courts and proceedings were finally decided on November 10, 1998. Thereafter, Gurdev Singh filed the present proceedings for rendition of account and payment of amounts due. We have gone through the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner and find that there must be an end to the travails of the respondent. It took the respondent a life time to obtain possession of his share through partition. Had the petitioners come to amicable terms and not held on to Gurdev Singh's share, driving him to a long litigation, something could have been observed in their favour. The petitioners' argument that they could only be account for three years of rent, the three years relating back from the date on which the suit for rendition of accounts was filed, is one of desperation. The Assistant Collector had decreed the share for crop from Kharif 1981 to Rabi 1991. However, the petitioners had gone on and on to resist surrender of possession. The respondent obtained possession after partition on May 15, 1998, sent a legal notice on June 10, 1999 and and thereafter filed a suit within limitation on August 22, 1999, claiming share of crop for the period during which the petitioners had been in wrongful possession. The claim of share of produce could only be determined after completion of partition proceedings in respect of which instrument of partition was drawn up on May 15, 1998. Therefore, the Assistant Collector was perfectly justified in holding that the suit of the respondent for rendition of accounts filed on August 22, 1999 was well within limitation. CWP No. 19931 of 2004 4 We are of the view that the orders of the revenue courts do not suffer from any jurisdictional or legal error. This petition is consequently dismissed. (K.S. GAREWAL) JUDGE 19.3.2008 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) prem JUDGE