MUNSHI RAM Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellants challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 7/2/2017 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dtd. 20/7/2019 passed by the First Appellate Court.

(2.) The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- respondents herein filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-appellants from raising any type of construction over the suit property or from changing the nature of the suit land and further from transferring the possession of the suit property. The plaintiff-respondents claimed themselves to be the owners of the suit land on the basis of the Jamabandi for the year 2007-08 read with mutation No.1839 to 1946 and 1967. It was further averred that the defendant-appellants were reflected in possession of the suit property in the capacity of helpers and their possession in the revenue record has been reflected in the capacity of Batai-Tihai Galla Va Neera Billa Kharach Shayak Kheti. It was further the case that the integrity of this order/judgment possession of the defendant-appellants was not that of a tenant but of a helper and that the defendant-appellants had no right or authority to change the nature of the land. On notice, the defendant-appellants filed their written statement and claimed themselves to be in possession of the suit property as occupancy tenants. It was further denied that the possession of the defendant-appellants was that of a helper. It was the case set up that they are in possession as occupancy tenants and it was further averred that they had become owners as they were in possession without payment of Batai or rent. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :

(3.) The Trial Court held that though the defendant-appellants had claimed that they were in possession of the suit property as occupancy tenants and had raised some construction, the entry in the column of Lagan reflected them as being helpers or sahayak. It was further noticed that the defendant-appellants have not challenged the revenue entries reflecting them as sahayak. The suit was accordingly decreed. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dtd. 20/7/2019. Hence, the present regular second appeal. integrity of this order/judgment