BANWARI DEFENDANT Vs. DEGH RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant in the circumstances which are these. The respondents filed a suit against the appellant for possession of agricultural land, as detailed in the plaint with the allegations that the land was previously owned by one Hira, who had died issueless. The respondents claimed that they were the heirs of the deceased being the great grandsons and daughters of Kundan, brother of Hira's father. The land had since been mutated in their favour and they had, thus, become its owners. They alleged that the appellant had entered into wrongful possession of the land and prayed for a decree for possession against him. The suit was contested by the appellant, who admitted that the land was previously owned by Hira, who had died. It was also admitted that the plaintiff-respondents are the sons and daughters of Neki son of Mam Chand. The appellant, however, asserted that he was a tenant on the land in dispute from the time of his father for the last fifty years and that his application for purchase of the said land under the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, was pending. The appellant pleaded that the respondents had no right to seek relief from Civil Court in view of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The appellant set up an alternative plea that he had become owner of the land by way of adverse possession. The trial Court framed the necessary issues to cover the points in controversy. Without going into unnecessary details, it may be mentioned that the trial Court found that the respondents were proved to be the owners Nos. 2 and 5, the trial Court held that the appellant was a tenant on the suit land and that being so, the respondents could not claim possession of the same. The suit of the respondents was, therefore, dismissed.

(2.) The respondents went up in appeal against the judgment of the trial Court which was heard by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Narnaul, with Enhanced Appellate Powers. The said Court affirmed the finding of the trial Court in respect of ownership of the land being that of the respondents. On the question of tenancy, the lower Appellate Court after considering the documentary and oral evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that the appellant was in occupation of the land only by forcible possession and as such, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The lower appellate Court, therefore, reversed the decision of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the respondents for possession against the appellant. This is how this second appeal has now been filed by the appellant to impugn the judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge.

(3.) The only point which has been mooted in this appeal is as to whether there was a relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties, and if so, whether the appellant could resist the claim of possession as made in the suit by the respondents. So far as the factual position is concerned, the learned counsel do not dispute that up to the period 1953-54, the appellant and his father were shown in the Revenue entries..... as being in cultivating possession of the land in the capacity of non-occupancy tenants. The copies of the relevant Jamabandi entries are Exhibites D-6 to D-11. However, for the later period, all the Revenue entries indicate that the appellant and his father are shown to be in forible possession of the land without payment of any rent. These entries are constituted by copy of the Jamabandi Exhibit P-12 for 1961-62,copy of the Jamabandi Exhibit P-6 for the year 1966-67 and copy of the Khasra Girdawari Exhibit P-13 for the years 1963 to 1966. With this admitted factual position, it has to be considered as to which of the parties can claim better title to the land in dispute.