PURAN Vs. KURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal against an appellate decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Mr. D.P. Sodhi, dated the 4th June, is 1953 reversing the decree of the trial Court and thus dismissing the plaintiff's suit for declaration.

(2.) Khasra No. 3969 measuring two bighas and 13 biswas in village Gannaur is the area in dispute in the present case. According to the Jambandi entries of the year 1933-34 the owners were shown in the proprietorship column and in the column of cultivation Puran son of Kirta caste Jat ghair maurusi through Ramji Lal ghair maurusi No. 2 is shown and in the column of lagan it is shown 'bila lagan bawaja nawakfiyat' obtained by the first non-occupancy tenant meaning Pura. In 1937-38 in the cultivation column the entry is 'Puran non-occupancy tenant' and in the lagan column it is shown 'without payment of rent bawaja nawakfiyat' and this entry has continued throughout. The original proprietors of this land were Jawala, Banwari and Hargian. On the 12th May, 1951 Kure purchased this property and had a notice of ejectment issued to the plaintiff Puran. The plaintiff brought a suit in the Court of the Assistant Collector to contest the notice on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the two, but this suit was dismissed on the 6th May, 1952 and therefore on the 10th May, 1952 the plaintiff brought the present suit for declaration that he had become owner by adverse possession. During the pendency of the suit the landlord obtained possession, but it was held that this did not affect the form of the suit. The trial Court held that the plaintiff took possession without knowing who its owners were and that the owners never come forward to claim any rent from him and therefore he concluded that the plaintiff was not a tenant and the possession was adverse and he decreed the suit.

(3.) In appeal the Senior Subordinate Judge after discussing the various entries has held that the plaintiff has been in possession for a period of fifteen years, that the land was lying vacant and uncultivated and the plaintiff took and remained in possession of it without paying any rent to the owners. He has referred to the evidence of Ram Singh D.W. 1 who is a Lambardar and was a previous owner that the plaintiff was in possession for fifteen years and that he (Ram Singh) knew of this possession. A similar statement was made by Hargian D.W. 2 who was also an owner. The Court has therefore concluded from this that the defendant must be taken to be aware of the plaintiff being in possession, but in spite of that he found that it had not been proved that the plaintiff was holding the land adversely to the real owners. It is rather difficult to understand what exactly the learned judge meant by saying that if the plaintiff was in possession as a tenant, mere non-payment of rent for any period would not make his possession adverse, and if he was not in possession as a tenant, the question arises to whether his possession was adverse to the knowledge of the owners "from its very inception". This, he held, had not been proved.