SAROJ AND OTHERS Vs. SATYENDER AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs whose suit for declaration and possession was dismissed by the trial court and also the appeal was dismissed by the learned lower appellate court. The appellant had filed a suit claiming that they are the owners of suit property comprising khasra and killa numbers 6//24(8-0), 25(8-0), and 7//11(4-11), 12(15-16), 13 (6-11), 20/2(4-8), 21/1(4-12), and 20//1/1(4-12) and 21//4/1(6-0), 5(8-0), 3/2 min north (2-4) and 6//16(8-16), 17(9-9), kitas 13, total measuring 80 kanals 19 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Gagarwas. It was claimed that respondent No. 2 was the tenant on the land in question and he sub-let the land to his son without the consent of the plaintiffs/landlords, therefore, they are liable to be ejected and the possession deserves to the handed over to the plaintiffs. It was further prayed that the entry of mortgage in favour of the respondents entered into the revenue record is without any basis and therefore the same may be set aside.

(2.) The facts as pleaded in the plaint and as contended during the arguments are that originally one Indraj was the owner of the suit land. Ganpat Rai was the tenant over the suit land. After the death of Indraj his wife Ramkaur inherited the suit property. After Ramkaur inherited the property Ganpat had surrendered possession of the suit land to Ramkaur in the year 1976. Thereafter, Ramkaur self cultivated the land in question upto the year 1978. After the death of Ganpat in the year 1978 Ramkaur inducted Ishwar, i.e. respondent No.2, who was one of the sons of Ganpat Rai as tenant on the land in question. Thereafter, Ramkaur suffered a decree dated 23.03.1994 in favour of Satpal, Joginder and Saroj resulting into the transfer of land in favour of these persons vide mutation dated 18.05.994, Ex:P-12. Therefore, they became the owner and Ishwar became tenant under them. Since, as per the plaintiffs Ishwar had sub-letted the land in question in favour of his son, therefore, the tenancy stood terminated and they claimed the possession of the suit land.

(3.) The defendants filed written statements. Respondent No. 1 Satyender has taken a stand that he has no concern with the land in question. Defendant No.1 Satyender pleaded that his date of birth was 22.07.1976 and therefore, he was just 12 year old in the year 1978 when the sub tenancy is alleged to have been created in his favour. He took a stand that he never cultivated this land nor he is a sub tenant over this land. He further stated that it is only his father Ishwar along with his other brothers is cultivating the suit land and any entry made in the revenue record showing him to be a tenant or sub tenant is got wrongly entered by the plaintiffs in collusion with the revenue officials.