RSA No. 797-A of 1989 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A. No. 797-A of 1989(O&M) Date of Decision: September 08, 2011 Granth Sahib Baba Desa Singh, Thaneshar ---Appellant versus Smt. Satya Devi and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr. Chetan Dayal, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. Anil Ksheterpal, Advocate, for the respondents. *** 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Gurdev Singh, J. This second appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff - appellant, Granth Sahib Baba Desa Singh. The suit was filed by the plaintiff through its Muhtmim Gurdail Singh for the possession of the land in dispute measuring 13 kanals 05 Marlas situated in village Dera Khurd, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, fully detailed in the heading of the plaint. It has been averred in the plaint that the suit land was given by the plaintiff on lease for a period of 99 years to Hardev Inder Singh-defendant No. 2, vide registered RSA No. 797-A of 1989 -2- sale deed dated 19/21.3.1972. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that it was Satya Wati-defendant No. 1, who was coming in possession of this land and that fact came to its knowledge in the month of May, 1984 when it received summons in suit for permanent injunction filed against it by the said defendant and it verified the true facts at the spot. Defendant No.1 came into possession of this land in collusion with defendant No. 2 and her possession is that of a tress passer. The suit was contested only by defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 in his written statement admitted the claim of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1, in his written statement, denied the contentions of the plaintiff and pleaded that she is coming in cultivating possession of the land in dispute since the year 1967 on payment of ` 50/- per acre per annum as lagan. Previously, she was in possession through her son-in-law Niranjan Singh and since 1970, she is coming in possession as a direct tenant under the plaintiff. The Lease Deed set up by the plaintiff is forged and is the result of fraud and collusion. The plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit and the same is not maintainable. The same is also bad for misjoinder of the necessary parties. She also took up the objection that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and the same is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee. In replication to the written statement of defendant No. 1, the plaintiff denied the contentions raised therein and reiterated its averments made in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff has leased the property in dispute to defendant No. 2 vide lease deed dated 9/21.3.1972. If so, its effect? OPP RSA No. 797-A of 1989 -3- 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of the necessary parties? OPD 6. Whether the proper court fee has been affixed? If so, its effect? OPD 7. Whether the possession of the defendant No. 1 is in possession of the suit land since 1969? If so its effect? OPD 7.A Whether the possession of the defendant No. 1 on the on the suit land is unauthorised and is of tress passer. If so, to what effect? OPD 8. Relief.” To succeed in the suit, plaintiff examined Shri Rajinder Singh, PW-1, Shri Sat Pal, Registration Clerk, PW-2( as PW-4 in rebuttal evidence) and Banta Singh, PW-3. On the other hand, defendants examined Shri Satish Kumar, DW-1, Sh. C.B. Madan, Advocate, DW-2 and Ram Karan, DW-5. Defendants themselves stepped into the witness box as DW-3 and DW-4, respectively. After going through that evidence and hearing counsel for both the sides, the learned trial court decided issue Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7 and 7-A against the plaintiff and resultantly, dismissed its suit, vide judgment and decree dated 27.5.1988. Against that judgment and decree , the plaintiff preferred the first appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide judgment and decree dated 2.12.1988. RSA No. 797-A of 1989 -4- I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Learned counsel for the plaintiff placed on record the substantial questions of law and according to him the following substantial questions of law arise in the present appeal:- 1. Whether the reliance can be placed on Revenue Record in the shape of Jamabandi when there is no proof forthcoming as to on what basis the entries in the Jamabandis were initially incorporated? 2. Whether a party can be said to be a tenant on agricultural land on the basis of jamabandi entries as there is no mutation proved by the tenant regarding incorporation in Jamabandi of his status as tenant? 3. Whether the claim of the defendant regarding him being as a tenant be accepted when he has taken inconsistent pleas regarding his commencement of tenant in the pleadings?” However, he could not satisfy this Court that these are the substantial questions of law which arise in the present appeal, in view of the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the lower courts. In fact, no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, not maintainable and is dismissed as such. Records of the trial court be returned forthwith. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE September 08, 2011 PARAMJIT