REHMAT AND OTHERS Vs. MEHTAB KHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 16.11.1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Gurgaon.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents on the allegations that the plaintiffs-appellants were recorded in possession of the suit land, described in paragraph 1 of the plaint as gair morusi and defendants-respondents Nos.1 to 4 were recorded as owners of the suit land in the revenue record; that the plaintiffs were in fact granted occupancy rights in respect of the land under their cultivation by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 1.12.1959 and the suit land was allotted to the plaintiffs by the Consolidation authorities in the year 1960 with the mutual consent of the owners and the tenants; that the previous tenancy was split up during consolidation, as the joint khewat of the proprietors was partitioned among various co-owners; that since 1960, the plaintiffs were in continuous possession of the suit land and the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ceased to exist; that even though the plaintiffs were declared occupancy tenants, yet no mutuation in their favour, in this regard, was sanctioned and wrong entries showing the plaintiffs as gair morusi still continued; that the defendants were threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land by force; that even in the absence of the said decree, the plaintiffs had become the occupancy tenants over the suit land, as they were never ejected therefrom; and that by operation of law, they had become the owners of the suit land. It was accordingly prayed that a decree for declaration, with permanent injunction, be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants to the effect that the plaintiffs are entitled to get the mutuation of ownership sanctioned in their favour and the defendants be restrained from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants-respondents, who filed a joint written statement controverting the allegations of the plaintiffs-appellants, alleging therein that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit and as tenants-at-will. It was also denied that decree dated 8.12.1989 was ever passed in favour of the plaintiffs or that the suit land was allotted in view of any compromise with the consent of the defendants or that the plaintiffs were given the suit land during consolidation proceedings with the consent of the defendants or that, since then, the plaintiffs were in continuous possession of the suit land as owners. It was further alleged that the entries in the revenue record, showing the plaintiffs as tenants, were incorrect; and that there was no question of any mutation to be sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs with respect to the suit land, as the plaintiffs had no concern with the suit land. It was denied that the plaintiffs had acquired the occupancy rights or had become the owners of the suit land. It was accordingly prayed that the suit be dismissed.