HARISH CHANDER Vs. GHISA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated July 27, 1970 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirming the decrees passed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court in a suit for possession by way of pre-emption of the land in dispute in favour of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 on the ground that he was a tenant of the disputed land when it was sold to the appellants by respondents Nos. 2 to 4 through a registered sale deed dated September 29, 1967.

(2.) The suit was resisted by the appellants with the counter-claim that they, and not respondent No. 1, were in possession of the land on the relevant. date as tenants inasmuch as it had been leased out to them by their vendor Kanti Prasad two years prior to the sale, i.e., in the year 1965. The decrees passed by the Courts below proceed on the basis of evidence to the effect that the name of respondent No. 1 was recorded as a tenant in the Jamabandi for the year 1959-60 (Ex. P. 1) and consistently thereafter till the year 1968 (Khasra-girdawaris Exs. P.2 to P.7). Apart from the oral evidence there is no material on the record which may indicate the falsity of any of the entries in the revenue records and we are of the opinion that the lower courts were fully justified in relying on them. Learned counsel for the appellants relies upon three documents in support of his contention that the Khasra-girdawaris should not be believed. First in point of time is an application (Ex. A31) which was sent to the concerned Deputy Commissioner through the military authorities by one of the appellants who was an army hand. That application is dated December 11, 1967 and states that the land in dispute was taken by him on lease from Kanti Prasad in the year 1965 and prays that the Khasra-girdwari should be corrected accordingly. The second is the sale-deed itself in which appears a recital to the effect that on the date of the sale the vendors had been in possession of the land covered by it for the preceding two years. The third is the plaint itself which seeks "'possession by way of pre-emption". None of these documents is of any help to the case of the appellants. The recital in the plaint is easily explained. It is no more than the usual prayer made in suits for pre-emption and may well be interpreted to mean that possession be granted to the plaintiff by the decree in his capacity of a pre-emptor (and not that of a mere tenant). It cannot be implied therefrom that the plaintiff was out of actual possession. In fact the case made out in the plaint was specifically founded on the plea that the plaintiff had been in possession of the land in dispute as a tenant right up to the date of the institution of the suit. Paragraph 4 of the plaint reads:

(3.) The decree passed in favour of respondent No. 1 is not challenged on any other ground. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. All mesne profits deposited by respondent No. 1 in the courts below shall be paid back to him forthwith.