MOHAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having failed in two rounds of litigation, the plaintiff has approached this Court by instituting the present regular second appeal. The plaintiff had preferred a suit for obtaining declaration that he is owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 3 kanals 2 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Faridabad, Tehsil and District Faridabad, detail and description whereof has been given in the plaint. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was in possession of the property for a period of more than 50 years as gair marusi under the defendants. It is stated that possession of the plaintiff continued on the suit land as a tenant at will. There has been no attempt on the part of the defendants to evict the plaintiff. Even at the time when the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant, there was implied promise not to evict him. It was further averred that when the appellant/plaintiff was inducted as a tenant, the land was barren and uncultivable and it was due to hard work and labour deployed by the plaintiff that the nature of land had changed. A definite stand was taken by the appellant/plaintiff that by lapse of time, he had acquired occupancy rights over the suit land after the commencement of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Therefore, a declaration was sought that the plaintiff had become owner in possession over the suit property. Earlier, in the revenue record, name of Sohan Lal was written in the column of cultivator. The plaintiff had filed a suit to prove that he was in entire possession of the suit land. The said suit was decreed on 6.9.1988. The plaintiff had served a legal notice on 29.1.2004 calling upon the defendants to admit his claim qua the suit land as owner in possession thereof. Since the defendants denied title of the plaintiff, the present suit was filed.

(2.) Upon notice, the defendants had caused appearance, filed written statement and raised various preliminary objections especially the maintainability of suit, locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit and cause of action. It was further averred that the suit was barred by limitation. On merits, it was specifically pleaded that the plaintiff was in an unauthorized possession over the suit property. Therefore, acquiring of occupancy rights by the plaintiff was denied. It was further stated that the plaintiff/appellant had never obtained any permission from Custodian Department to remain in possession over the suit property. Therefore, he cannot be treated as a tenant over the property in question. After the completion of pleadings, the trial Court had drawn the following issues:-

(3.) The plaintiff himself appeared as PW. 1, whereas the defendants examined Charanjit Kumar, Naib Tehsildar (Sales), Faridabad, as DW. 1. The plaintiff had also tendered into evidence various documents for consideration of the Court.