SMT. SHAKUNTALA AND ANOTHER Vs. SATBIR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court by which judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court has been reversed.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration to the effect that they have acquired occupancy rights over the land bearing Khewat No. 218/214, Khatauni No.539, Khasra No.911(2-19) and 930 (5-2) [hereinafter referred to as the "property in dispute"] in view of Sec. 5(2) and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 [for short "the Act"] as they have acquired right of ownership in terms of Sec. 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 [for short "Act of 1952"] because the plaintiffs have been recorded in the column of cultivation as "Gair Maurisi Bashare Parata Malkana Billa Malkana".

(3.) The case set up by the plaintiffs is that they are in possession of the property in dispute, which is owned by Shamilat Pana Bichla of village Nangal Kalan for the last more than 60 years/three generations without interruption and without paying any rent, therefore, they have acquired occupancy rights in view of the provisions of the Act and also of the Act of 1952. It was also alleged that they were earlier recorded as co-sharers and when the other co-sharers had filed a case for partition before the Revenue Court, the plaintiffs had taken an objection that they have been wrongly recorded as co-sharers as they have been cultivating the land as "Gair Maurisi Bashare Parata Malkana Billa Malkana". It is also alleged that the said entry was corrected by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division vide order dated 10.06.1999. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs by impleading four defendants and Shamilat Pana Bichla which was sued through its representatives in terms of Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short "CPC"]. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed admitted written statement and no-one had appeared on behalf of the other proprietors of the Shamilat Pana Bichla, therefore, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that the predecessors-in interest of the plaintiffs have been cultivating the property in dispute having old khasra numbers which were changed as per Misal Hakiat for the year 1957-58 (Ex.P6/B). They have not been paying any lagan or rent to the proprietors of Shamilat Pana Bichla, therefore, in terms of Sec. 8 of the Act if a person is continuing as Gair Marusi without payment of rent or lagan for the last more than 30 years, presumption can be drawn that he has acquired occupancy rights in the suit property.