DEEP CHAND Vs. YED RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This defendants is appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenging concurrent findings of the fact passed by both the Courts below that the Plaintiff-respondents have acquired the rights of an occupancy tenant and accordingly they have been held, to become owner of the suit land and their suit has been decreed in their suit has been decreed in their favour. Both of the Courts have concurrently found that sine 1946-47 (Ex. P-9) the predecessor in interest of the Plaintiff-respondents have been in possession of the suit land as Gair Marusi on payment of lagaan at the rate of Rs. 5 per year. Similar, entries have been found in the Jamabandi for the year 1950-51 Ex. P-8 which show the possession of the predecessor in interest of the Plaintiff-respondents of the suit land as occupancy-tenant of payment of Rs. 5 per year as lagaan was in possession in the jamabandi for the year 1956-57 (P-7) and lagaan is shown at the rate of Rs. 9/- 2 annas per year. However, in the jamabandi for the year 1958-59 where it has been shown as (Ex.P-6) again possession has been shown of the predecessor in interest of the Plaintiff-respondents as occupancy tenant at the rate of Rs. 42/- as lagaan per year. These entries continued upto the year 1992-93 (P-1) showing that the Plaintiff-respondents continuously remain in possession as occupancy tenant at the rate of Rs. 42 lagaan per year. It has been rightly accepted by the courts below that the presumption of truth would attach to the entries in jamabandi which can supported by under Section 44 of the Land Revenue Act, 1887. No evidence on behalf of the defendant-appellants rebutting those presumptions has been adduced showing that either there was interruption in the continuous possession of the Plaintiff-respondents or there was any mitigating factor which may change their status of occupancy-tenant. Therefore, the courts below have rightly placed reliance on Section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenant (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act 1952 (for brevity the 'Act') to conclude that the Plaintiff-respondents have acquired the status before the appointed day i.e. 15.6.1952. Accordingly the Plaintiff-respondents have been declared as owners in possession of the land as occupancy-tenant.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no interference in the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below would be warranted because on appointed day, i.e. 15.6.1952, the Plaintiff-respondents have been found to be in possession of the suit land as occupancy tenant. The entries in the jamabandi have rightly been relied upon by the courts below and no evidence by the defendant-appellants rebutting those entries have been placed on record. The provisions of Section 3 of the Act have also been correctly considered and do not call for any interference of this court.

(3.) For the reasons aforementioned, this petition fails and the same dismissed.