ISHWAR SINGH Vs. TARA CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is in appeal before this Court aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court whereby the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the agricultural land measuring 35 kanals 7 marlas was decreed.

(2.) THE plaintiff has sought injunction inter-alia on the ground that one Ram Diya was recorded in possession of the suit land as Gair Marussi. In the column of payment of rent, the entry was, Bai Shera Malkan, Bai Vaja Kabza Derina. It was alleged that Ram Diya has never paid any Batai or lagan in cash of any kind and by prescription of time the said trespasser has become owner of the suit land. The plaintiff has alleged that he was inducted as tenant by Ram Diya vide lease deed dated 30.12.1968 and after the expiry of lease period, the plaintiff is in possession as a statutory tenant and thus the defendants cannot dispossess him.

(3.) THE first Appellate Court found that the plaintiff has not become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession as Ram Diya during his life time has never said to be in adverse possession against the defendant. The plaintiff who is only a lessee from Ram Diya cannot be said to have become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Thus the plaintiff is a tenant at sufferance after the expiry of lease period. However, the learned first Appellate Court granted injunction restraining the appellant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff as it was found that there is no proof of surrender of possession in favour of the appellant. The first Appellate Court found that in normal course of events, a person in possession as a lessee does not surrender the possession of his own. It is only when a person is compelled or forced, he surrenders the possession. Thus the first Appellate Court found that the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction.