MANGAL SINGH Vs. NIHAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the District Judge Ferozepore.

(2.) Briefly, the facts as given by the plaintiff-respondent are that the land in dispute belonged to Government and was lying banjar. He reclaimed it about ten or twelve years ago. Jasbir Singh, who is the son of Giani Bakhtawar Singh, Ex. M.L.A., is an influential person and constituted a bogus society under the name of "The Jasbir Co-operative Faming Society". He, in collusion with the revenue officials, got wrong entries made in the revenue record to the effect that the society was a tenant-at-will in the land in dispute under the State Government. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted a suit for declaration that he was in cultivating possession as tenant under the Provincial Government and for consequential relief that Khasra Girdawaris from Kharif 1966 to 1971 and Jamabandi relating to the year 1969-70 be corrected. The defendants contested the suit. They admitted that the land in dispute belonged to the State Government. They, however, stated that it was in their possession since 1959-60. According to them, the plaintiff was never in possession of the said land. It was held by the trial Court that Nihal Singh plaintiff was in cultivating possession of the said land and that the defendants got the entries in the Khasra Girdawari and Jamabandi made in collusion with the revenue officials. It decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Mangal Singh defendant went up in appeal before the District Judge. He affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The defendants have come up in appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court to this Court.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Courts below have misread the evidence, and therefore, the finding of fact arrived at by them, is vitiated. I went through the whole of evidence along with the learned counsel for the appellants but he could not point out any misreading by the Courts below. The learned counsel for the appellants has then argued that the Courts have not read the statements of the witnesses as a whole and have not appreciated the evidence properly. I regret my inability to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. In my view, the first appellate Court has properly gone through the statements and has appreciated it correctly. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the plaintiff-respondent was not in possession of the suit property for the last five-six years and that the Courts below have erred in holding that he was in possession thereof. No useful purpose will be served by discussing each witness again as the finding of fact arrived at by the first appellate Court is binding. It is sufficient to say that even Mangal Singh defendant-appellant has admitted that Nihal Singh had been in possession of the land for the last five-six years. His statement was recorded on August 24, 1973. Even if it may be assumed that the plaintiff came in possession five years prior to that date, it can be safely held that he has been in possession since Kharif 1968. The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention to the First Information Reports, Exhibits D. 5 and D. 6, dated January 10, 1973, and May 20, 1972, respectively, recorded at the instance of Nihal Singh plaintiff and submitted that no action was taken on their basis by the police as they were false. He has also submitted that defendant No. 1 has been shown to be in continuous possession in Khasra Girdawaris since 1960. He says that there are no grounds for not relying on the aforesaid documents. In my view, these contentions of the learned counsel have also no substance. The fact that the police did not take any action on the report of the plaintiff is no ground to dismiss the suit. The Civil Court has to arrive at an independent conclusion after considering all the evidence. Merely because the appellants have been shown to be in possession of the land in Khasra Girdawaris is not sufficient to hold that they are in its possession. Mangal Singh appellant has admitted the possession of the plaintiff-respondent for the last five-six years. In view of the aforesaid admission, it cannot be held that entries in Khasra Girdawaris are correct. In my opinion, no reliance can be placed on the entries relating to Kharif 1968 and subsequent crops.