SADHU RAM AND OTHERS Vs. JAGDISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 20th of December, 1980, Jagdish son of Baru filed a suit for permanent injunction against Sadhu Ram, Sat Pal son of Sadhu Ram and Yakub son of Ismael, restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession of land measuring 18 Bighas 10 Biswas comprised in Khewat No. 1318, Khatauni No. 3162, Khasra Nos. 84 and 313 to 317. It was pleaded that Baru father of the plaintiff was in possession of the land in suit as a tenant under Sadhu Ram defendant and continued in possession thereof before it was declared surplus and after it was so declared, it was allotted to Baru on 3rd January, 1964. After Baru's death, the plaintiff came in possession as a son of a tenant and he was so recorded in the revenue records. It was pleaded that Sadhu Ram had filed an application for ejectment of the plaintiff under Section 14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, in which Sadhu Ram made a statement admitting that Baru was the original tenant on one-third batai and after his death, Jagdish plaintiff was his tenant on one- third batai. That application was dismissed for non-prosecution on 16th December, 1980. It was also averred in the plaint that Sadhu Ram had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction as also for possession on 14th of September, 1979, in which it was alleged that the declaration of surplus area and the allotment of the same in favour of Murli, Jagdish and Jit, defendants Nos. 2 to 14 respectively, were illegal, and a decree for possession was sought against defendants Nos. 1 to 4 including Jagdish who are arrayed as defendant No. 3 in that suit. Even in the prayer clause, a decree for possession as a consequential relief was claimed against defendants Nos. 2 to 4 who were admitted to be in possession of the respective portions allotted to them. Paragraph 8(ii) of that plaint is as follows :-

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the entire matter, I am of the view that the order of the learned District Judge is well based and calls for no interference.

(3.) Certified copies of the plaint filed by Sadhu Ram against the State of Haryana and the three allottees including Jagdish, the ejectment-application under Section 14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, the statement of Sadhu Ram made in those proceedings and the final order dated 16th December, 1981, have been produced before me, which are already on the record of the trial Court. The facts which emerged therefrom clearly go to show that the land in dispute is in possession of Jagdish as a tenant on one- third batai and that till 16th of December, 1980, no ejectment order had been passed against the tenant. Even till today, no ejectment order has been passed against the tenant. Consequently, the presumption would be of continuity of tenancy. It has never been the case of Sadhu Ram that Jagdish gave up tenancy rights voluntarily and he came into possession of the same. The correction of Khasra Girdawaris at the instance of Yakub from Kharif 1977 onwards, in no way, affects the rights of Jagdish, firstly because those entries were got corrected behind his back and, secondly, Khasra Girdawari entries are not record-of-rights and carries no presumption of truth under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Yakub was the Karinda/servant of Sadhu Ram and it appears that he was set up by Sadhu Ram and Sadhu Ram appeared in those proceedings and requested for the correction of the Khasra Girdawari entries. Therefore, the corrected entries are waste papers and do not affect the admitted position that Jagdish has been in possession as a tenant. Whether the declaration of surplus area is correct or bad and whether the allotment in pursuance of the declaration of surplus area would stand or not, would again be not relevant because, admittedly, Jagdish is a tenant of Sadhu Ram on payment of one-third batai and would continue to be the tenant till he is evicted in due course of law. If allotment made to him is valid, then on payment of the price, he would become owner thereof otherwise he would continue to be a tenant. Once the aforesaid facts are so patent on the record, I find that it is a fit case in which it would be wholly unnecessary to allow Sadhu Ram to drag on the suit in the trial Court as the same deserves to be decreed forthwith. Accordingly, I withdraw the suit from the trial Court for being finally disposed of by this Court.