MOHAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.9283-C of 2006 This application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC has been filed by the appellant for producing additional evidence in the form of jamabandi qua the suit land comprising in khasra No.1824 for the years 1974-75, 1979-80, 1984-85, 1989-90, 1994-95 and 1999-2000. In this application it has been averred by the appellant that the appellant sought declaration qua the suit property to the effect that he has become owner in possession and that revenue entries comprising in the jamabandis for the years 1994-95 and 1999-2000, wherein one Manohar Lal has been recorded in possession, are not binding on his rights and are in fact clerical mistake on the part of the revenue officers and in order to demonstrate the aforesaid mistake to have crept in due to the mistake of the revenue officials, he wanted to prove that Manohar Lal who was a different person and was in possession of khasra No.1838 and not of land comprised in khasra No.1824. However, by mistake his counsel exhibited jamabandis pertaining to khasra No.1838 on the record and inadvertently could not produce jamabandis qua suit land comprising in khasra No.1824 though the said revenue record was handed over by him to his counsel. It has been further averred in this application that the aforesaid mistake on the part of his counsel could be detected by the appellant only when he came to engage the Advocate for filing the present appeal before this court. Hence, he be allowed to produce the additional evidence in the form of jamabandis pertaining to the years 1974-75, 1979-80, 1984-85, 1989-90, 1994-95 and 1999-2000 qua suit land comprising in khasra No.1824. There is no merit in the application filed by the appellant. Right from the beginning, it is the case of the appellant/applicant that he was owner in possession of the suit land being in possession as Gair Marausi under the defendants on payment of lagan. However, it was found by the trial court that his suit was not maintainable as there were entries in the revenue record in regard to the land in dispute in favour of one Manohar Lal and his possession over the suit land was illegal and he had no right to seek such declaration under the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court found possession of the plaintiff/appellant only for the period with effect from 1964 to 1974 and as per the jamabandis for the year 1979-80, 1984-85, 1994-95 and 1999-2000, it was one Manohar Lal who was mentioned as gair marausi tenant. Even before the trial court, the appellant/applicant claimed that these entries were wrongly made. Thus, the plaintiff knew about the alleged mistake in the revenue record and did not get it corrected in the jamabandis and, therefore, the factum of the entries in the revenue record in the name of one Manohar Lal were very much to his knowledge and not only these facts find mention in the judgment and decrees of the trial court yet plaintiff/appellant did not take any action to lead any additional evidence before the lower appellate court and has filed the present the application only after he lost before the lower appellate court. Not only this, I have perused the revenue record produced as Annexure A/1 to A/6 along with this application which is sought to be produced as additional evidence. Even if the aforesaid record is placed on record, the applicant cannot succeed for the other reasons as noticed by the courts below.

(2.) I find no merit in this application and the same is dismissed.

(3.) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby his suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit land having acquired tenancy rights of the suit land in dispute being in possession for the last 50 years as gair marausi under the defendants on payment of lagan, has been dismissed. Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed written statement in which various preliminary objections were taken. On merits, it was denied that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the agricultural land. It was further submitted that he was in possession of the suit property illegally. It was denied that he was in possession of the suit property for the last more than 50 years as gair marausi on payment of lagan. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for.