BEERU Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT PAWTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 2129-C of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, the application is allowed and delay of one day in filing the appeal is condoned. CM No. 2130-C of 2011

(2.) FOR the reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, the application is allowed and delay of 92 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 769 of 2011

(3.) THE plaintiffs/appellants alleged that the suit land has been in possession of the plaintiffs and their predecessors as tenants at Will for more than 70-80 years on payment of Chakota (rent) of ` 2/- per year. Defendant No.1-Gram Panchayat, recorded as owner of the suit RSA No. 769 of 2011 land, had assured never to eject the plaintiffs from the suit land. THE rent was also never increased. THE plaintiffs thus alleged that they acquired occupancy rights in the suit land and have, therefore, become owners thereof. However, defendant No.1 has leased out the suit land to defendant No.2 for two years on payment of ` 9000/- vide receipt dated 08.05.2003, but the plaintiffs are in actual possession of the suit land. THE plaintiffs accordingly sought declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land and lease by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal and unlawful and has no effect on the rights of the plaintiffs. Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land in any manner except in due course of law was also prayed for. Both the defendants filed separate but similar written statements. THEy controverted the averments of the plaintiffs. It was denied that plaintiffs have acquired occupancy rights in the suit land or have become owners thereof. Lease by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 was defended as legal and valid. Learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 09.12.2009 partly decreed the plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land except in due course of law, holding that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land as 'Gair Marusi' tenants/tenants at Will. Suit regarding remaining relief was dismissed. THE plaintiffs as well as defendant No.1 filed first appeals against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2010 dismissed both the appeals. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed this second appeal.