R.S.A.No. 4815 of 2009 (O&M) 1 ` In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 4815 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.5.2011 Raghbir Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Naib Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.G.S.Nagra, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. R.S.Manhas, Advocate for respondents. **** SABINA, J. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration that they were owners in equal share and were in joint possession of the suit land. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that Lal Singh was in possession of the suit property as occupancy tenant without payment of any rent beyond the amount of land revenue. The possession of Lal Singh as a occupancy tenant was for more than 30 years before the enforcement of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952. The ownership continued in the name of the defendants. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. R.S.A.No. 4815 of 2009 (O&M) 2 The defendants No.1 to 8 were proceeded proceeded ex parte. The defendants No. 12 to 16, in their written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the plaintiffs were not occupancy tenants qua the suit land. The entries in the revenue record in the column of ownership were correct. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 3. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPD 4.Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD 5. Relief.” The Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 1.9.2008. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed. Hence, the present appeal by defendants No.13 to 16. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that as per the jamabandi for the year 1976-77, Ex.P-19, the owners were reflected to be in possession of the suit property. Hence, the R.S.A.No. 4815 of 2009 (O&M) 3 plaintiffs could not be described as occupancy tenants. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that as per the revenue record, the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property through their ancestors for the last many years. The stray entry Ex.P-19 in favour of the owners was liable to be ignored. Admittedly, the plaintiffs had never paid any rent to the defendants. A perusal of the jamanandi for the year 1921-22 Ex.P-3 revels that Lal Singh son of Harnam Singh and Harnam Singh son of Deva Singh are in possession of the suit property as gair morussi . In column No.9, it has been mentioned that they were in possession as owners. Even in the later jamabandis placed on record, the ancestors of the plaintiffs had been described to be in possession qua the suit property. Ex.P-13/A, copy of the jamabandi for the year 1952-53, depicts that the new khasra numbers had been allotted in place of the old khasra numbers qua the suit property. As per jamabandi Ex.P-19 for the year 1976-77, the owners are described to be in possession of the suit property. However, in the later jamabandi for the year 1981-82, the possession of the plaintiffs has been described in column No.6. Thereafter, the possession of the plaintiffs is duly depicted in the revenue record. In these circumstances, the stray entry in the jamabandi Ex.P-19 is liable to be ignored. Thus, the plaintiffs had been successful in establishing that they had been in possession of the suit property without payment of rent and had, thus, acquired the rights of occupancy tenants. Learned first Appellate Court had, thus, rightly decreed the R.S.A.No. 4815 of 2009 (O&M) 4 suit of the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 06 , 2011 anita