JASWANT SINGH Vs. CH KESHO DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned in the present regular second appeal is the judgment and decree dated 14.2.1986, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the judgment and decree dated 26.2.1985, passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Pathankot, was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs (appellants herein) had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they have become owners of the suit land, fully detailed in the plaint, on account of their having been in continuous possession as tenants for more than hundred years under the express and implied contractual conditions of never to eject. The permanent injunction was also sought for restraining the defendant (respondent herein) from dispossessing the plaintiffs/appellants from the suit land, measuring 30 kanals 17 marlas, by force and without due course of law. The land is described as khasra Nos. 451, 476 min South and 477, as per the Jamabandi for the year 1976-77 of village Daulatpur, Tehsil Pathankot.

(2.) According to the plaintiffs/appellants, the plaintiffs and before them, their predecessors-in-interest have been in continuous possession of the suit land as tenant for more than hundred years. There is an express and implied promise on the part of the defendant/respondent and his predecessor-in-interest not to eject the plaintiffs/appellants from the suit land. The plaintiffs/appellants have made considerable improvements upon the suit land before briningng it under cultivation. They have also constructed cattle sheds and rooms for their residences. Some of the land was also acquired by the Land Acquisition Department. The arrangement for drinking water has also been made through Municipal Committee and fruit bearing trees have also been planted by the plaintiffs/appellants and their forefathers. They have become occupancy tenants of the suit land within the meaning of Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act No. 16 of 1887. As such, right of ownership also vested in them on the commencement of proprietary rights in the Occupancy Tenants Act No. 8 of 1953.

(3.) The defendant/respondent denied that the plaintiffs/appellants or their predecessors-in-interest are in continuous possession or having been cultivating the suit land for more than hundred years. It was stated that they have never been the tenants in the suit land. The express or implied promise was also denied. It was claimed that defendant/respondent was the owner in possession of the suit land. Therefore, the question of plaintiffs/appellants becoming occupancy tenants under Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, does not arise. The plaintiffs/appellants also have not acquired the proprietary rights in the Occupancy Tenant Act, 1953.