SONA DEVI Vs. JAI MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. It has been concurrently found by both the Courts below that Smt. Bohati was owner in possession of the suit land who died on 14.1.1976. After her death one Phoolpati alongwith others became owner in possession and mutation No. 28 dated 6.6.1987 was entered in their favour. They all suffered judgment and decree dated 29.7.1991 in Civil Suit No. 345 dated 10.6.1991 in favour of plaintiff-respondents and mutation No. 1107 dated 14.9.1991 has been entered and sanctioned in favour of plaintiff-respondents. The case set up by defendant-appellants is that Phoolpati and others had no right, title or interest in the suit land and, therefore they could not have suffered judgment and decree dated 29.7.1991 in Civil Suit No. 345. It was further claimed by defendant-appellants that they are in adverse possession of the suit land for a long period and therefore, their possession has ripened into ownership. It was still further asserted by the defendant-appellants that the judgment and decree dated 29.7.1991 suffered by Phoolpati and others in favour of plaintiff-respondents require registration as plaintiff-respondents did not have any pre-existing right. The views of the learned appellate Court in this regard reads as under :-

(2.) Shri Kamal Sharma, learned Counsel for the defendant appellants has argued that defendant-appellants are tenants at will in accordance with the judgment Ex. D.2 dated 13.1.1999, learned Counsel has also submitted that here is ample evidence to show that defendant-appellants have become owner by way of adverse possession. Another submission made by the learned counsel is that the judgment and decree dated 29.7.1991 suffered by Phoolpati and others in favour of plaintiff-respondents require registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and others, 1996 AIR(SC) 196.

(3.) I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel and regret my inability to accept the same because the first two submissions that defendant-appellants are tenants at will and have become owner by way of adverse possession cannot coexist. The tenants have never acquired proprietary rights by virtue of possession. There is no declaration in favour of the defendant-appellants that they are tenants Gair Marusi or tenants at will within the meaning of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952. It is also well settled that more long possession without any proof of knowledge on the part of true owners for more than 12 years would not confer any right of ownership by way of adverse possession as has been rightly held by the lower appellate Court which has referred to various judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court.