GURU AMARJIT SINGH Vs. RATTAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-plaintiff laid the suit for ejectment of the respondents pleading that the property in question belongs to Guru Naunihal Singh, his grandfather, and he succeeded by inheritance to 5 Kanals 17 Marlas of land in Kartarpur village. His grandfather had leased the same to Sardha Ram and Nar Singh Dass, predecessors of the respondent on October 20, 1905 on payment of Rs. 2/-as yearly rent. They constructed the buildings at their own cost, but the 1st respondent sold 30 Marlas to the defendant 5 to 7 on October 9, 1967 and defendants 2 to 5 had sold some plots to defendant No. 8 on January 4 1968, which came to his knowledge in 1970. A notice of forfeiture under S. 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, for short 'the Act' was got issued and served on June 4, 1971 and laid the suit. The respondents in their written statements pleaded that the father of the first defendant and the father of defendants Nos. 2 to 5 died in the year 1955. They have no knowledge of execution of any lease deed by the predecessor-in-interest. The land was in possession and enjoyment of their predecessors as owners even prior to 1905. No lease deed was executed. Even if there was any such lease, it was only nominal and never intended to be acted upon. They did not pay any rent to the appellant. Even if the tenancy is proved, being occupancy tenants they became owners by operation of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Property Right) Act, 1958. If the respondents are proved to be raiyats, they became owners by operation of Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961. Alternatively they pleaded that they had prescribed adverse possession as they were not paying any rent at any time since 1905, but as owners they have been paying property tax to the Govt. On merits they denied the allegations. made in the plaint. They disclaimed any receipt of notice prior to the suit.

(2.) The trial court found that the original lease deed was not produced. A copy of more than 30 years old was produced and was admissible in evidence which would show that Shardha Ram and Nar Singh Dass had. executed a lease deed on October 20, 1905 in favour of Guru Naunihal Singh. But there is no proof of payment of any rent of Rs. 2/ - per year. Jamabandi entries did not show any payment of rent, but only existence of terms of lease to pay rent at Rs. 2/- per annum. Non-production of the receipts of the payment of rent clearly indicates that there was no relationship of landlord and tenants. "There is hardly any evidence if the plaintiff accepted them to be his tenants. In these circumstances it can hardly be stated that defendants 1 to 5 are the tenants of the plaintiff". He concluded that from 1955 the respondents were holding the land as trespassers, and they had no relationship of tenancy with the appellant and that the suit was barred by limitation and the defendants have become owners by adverse possession. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Addl. District Judge assumed several things in favour of the appellant and concluded that there is a proof of payment of rent of Rs. 2/- per year till 1966-67 as per Jamabandi, though Jamabandi only mentioned the lease and rent of Rs. 2/ - per year. It is settled law that entries in the Jamabandi are not proof of title. They are only statements for revenue purpose. It is for the parties to establish the relationship or title to the property unless there is unequivocal admission. Yet the appellate court contrarily deduced inference and findings in favour of the appellant and thereby it held that the respondents are continuing as tenants at sufferance on permissive possession and there was no hostile assertion of title to the knowledge of the appellant, so the question of adverse possession does not arise. Therefore, he allowed the appeal and decreed the suit.

(3.) The High Court has rightly placed the case squarely within the four corners of the pleadings of the appellant. The appellant pleaded that the respondents forfeited their lease by sale of the land to third parties claiming themselves as owners of the property. Admittedly, the sale deeds have not been produced. Therefore, in what character the respondents have sold the lands is not proved. The copy of the lease-deed was in Urdu and the learned Judge got it translated into English. It is part of the record. It does not disclose that there is any covenant prohibiting alienation of the land and for breach thereof right of re-entry was provided thereunder. The only ground on which the right of re-entry by forfeiture provided thereunder was non-payment of annual ground rent of Rs. 2/-. But that is not the ground on which the suit was laid. Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that a lease of immovable property determines by forfeiture, that is to say -(1) in case the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that, on breach thereof, the lessor may re-enter; or (2) in case the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself....... and the lease provides that the lessor may re-enter on the happening of such event and in any of these cases the lessor or his transferee gives notice in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease.