HARNAM SINGH Vs. DALIP SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against a judgment of a learned Single who affirmed the order of the lower appellate Court which had granted a decree for possession of land measuring 277 bighas and 3 biswas in reversal of the decree of the trial Court by which the suit had been dismissed as against the contesting Defendants. The Plaintiffs instituted a suit for possession of the aforesaid land on the ground that they had acquired it by purchase from one Kuldip Singh by means of a registered sale deed and that the Defendants who were his tenants had surrendered possession voluntarily but after a few days they again forcibly occupied the land and had no right to it being trespassers. The contesting Defendants pleaded that the Plaintiffs had never purchased the land and that the Defendants had never delivered its possession to the Plaintiffs and further they were in possession as tenants and not as trespassers. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit was also challenged. The trial Court passed a decree for possession against Defendants 9, 10, 11 and 12 who had admitted the claim. With regard to the contesting Defendants it was held that the Plaintiffs had not purchased the land in dispute and that they had never got its possession. It was further found that the Defendants had not been dispossessed as alleged in the plaint and were still in possession of the land as tenants under Kuldip Singh and they could not be ejected otherwise than in due course of law in accondance with Section 7 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1965, and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. In appeal the learned District Judge decided the question whether the possession of the land had been given up to the Plaintiffs by the contesting Defendants after the former had acquired the laid from Kuldip Singh by purchase. It is stated in his judgment as follows: -

(2.) ON second appeal before the learned Single Judge, an affidavit was filed by Shri Sunder Lal, Advocate, who had appeared before the District Judge on 10th February 1960 in the appeal decided by him. It was stated in the affidavit that the ownership of the Plaintiffs had been denied and objections on the ground of non -production of the original sale deed had also been taken and that the learned Judge was wrong in stating in his judgment that the ownership of the Plaintiffs had not been disputed before him. It is apparently for this reason that the learned Single Judge heard arguments with regard to the question of ownership of the Plaintiffs. With regard to the objection that neither the original sale deed in favour of the Plaintiffs executed by Kuldip Singh had been produced or properly proved, the learned Judge observed as follows: -

(3.) MR . Atma Ram, the learned Counsel from the Appellants, has submitted with a certain amount of vehemence that the finding of the learned District Judge was perverse and was based on improbabilities because it is difficult to conceive that any tenant in the presence of the various tenancy laws conferring manifold privileges and benefits on them would quietly surrender possession voluntarily. It has further been urged that as a matter of fact the contesting Defendants had obtained proprietary rights under the various provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, in the land in dispute. Copies of orders relating to acquisition of those rights have been sought to be taken in additional evidence by us. There is no question of their being admitted into evidence at this stage because no such application was made either before the District Judge or before the learned Single Judge and no question arises now of admitting them into additional evidence keeping in view the principles which are well settled with regard to admission of such evidence.