TARSEM SINGH Vs. MOHAN LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal, at the hands of defendant no.7, is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs, was decreed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as recorded by the learned first appellate court in paras 2 and 3 of the impugned judgement, are that Bhagwan Dass predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 3 were owner in possession of land detailed in head note of plaint. After his death, suit property alongwith other revenue estate left by him was inherited by his sons Dasondhi Ram and Gian Chand in equal shares. Predecessor-ininterest of plaintiffs and defendants no.1 to 3 have planted trees of various kinds in land in dispute and some part of land was being used for cultivation. The entry of land was recorded by revenue staff as Jhugi Darakhtan. It has been further alleged that till now the entry of land is being recorded as it was recorded by the revenue staff in the year 1945-46. However, the various kinds of trees like a big mango tree, eucalyptus and Sheesham trees are standing in the land in dispute which were planted by the plaintiffs themselves. It has been further alleged that predecessor-ininterest of defendants never came into possession of disputed property and they got incorporated false entries in revenue record showing themselves to be tenant. After the year 1945-46, somewhere in the year 1955, the permanent tenant of the land were made the owners as per the policy of government. Defendants no.4 to 16 never took the possession of disputed property. Earlier before 1945-46 the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs and defendants no.1 to 3 were the owners in possession of suit land and ever till today they are owners in possession of suit land. The ownership right of defendants no.4 to 16 as well as their predecessors, if any have been extinguished by efflux of time. On 10.8.1999 some of the defendants form 4 to 16 came to spot alongwith Kanungo and Patwari to do demarcation of land in dispute and after demarcation they went away. On 11.8.1999, Mangal Singh defendant no.9 alongwith some unknown persons came to spot with intention to cut the trees standing in land and plaintiffs objected the same. So the cause of action has been arose to plaintiffs to file the present suit for first time on 11.8.1999 and finally on 5.9.1999 when finally the defendants refused to accept the claim of plaintiffs, hence this suit. Upon notice defendant no.4,5,6,7,8,13 and 15 appeared and filed written statement by raising preliminary objection that suit was bad for non joinder of necessary parties and that jurisdiction of this court is barred under Vesting of Property Right Act and Punjab Tenancy Act. On merits, it was alleged that predecessor-in-interest of defendants planted various kinds of trees in suit land about more than 60 years back when predecessor-ininterest of answering defendants were in possession of suit land as Makbusa Marusian and their names were rightly entered in revenue record.

(3.) According to policy of government, Marusies were made owner and as predecessor-in-interest of answering defendants were Makbusa Marusian in suit land as they were rightly made owners of suit land and thereafter land in dispute remained uncultivated for quite a long time and it became Banjar Jadid and Jhiri Drakhtan. However, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff got wrong entries in column no.5 and 9 in revenue record with an active connivance of then Patwari who was residing in their house. In fact predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff or plaintiffs never came in possession of suit land at all before 1945 or thereafter. As per instructions of Govt. the tenant can remain possession as Bila Lagal. So all these facts shows active connivance of predecessors-in-interest of plaintiffs with patwari which has no effect on right of answering defendants at all and their possession is fully shown in jamabandi of the year 1945-46. Suit property was never cultivated from 1960 to 1994. Various other allegations contained in the plaint have been denied by the defendants. As such it has been prayed that suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with costs. Defendants no.14-A, 14-B, 15-A, 15-B and defendant no.16 also took similar pleadings and prayed for dismissal of suit of palintiffs.