FARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATION Vs. DIWAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal against whom the suit for the grant of the permanent injunction has been decreed by both the Courts below.

(2.) Dewan Chand, plaintiff filed the suit for the grant of the permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing him forcibly and without due process of law from the land, in dispute, on the ground that he was in cultivating possession of the land measuring 66 Kanals 18 Marlas as a tenant under it. He has previously filed a suit against it restraining it from interfering with the land measuring 26 Kanals 18 Marlas which was decreed in his favour. Now the defendant had started giving threats to dispossess him from the land, in dispute, measuring 40 Kanals; hence the present suit. According to him, he was in cultivating possession of the suit land as a tenant and the defendant had no right to dispossess him therefrom forcibly. In the written statement, it was pleaded that the defendant was the sole owner of the suit land. The plaintiff was a leasee of another parcel of land measuring 26 Kanals 18 Marlas for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80. As regards the present suit, the plaintiff was in unlawful possession of the suit land. The trial Court found that the plaintiff was the tenant in cultivating possession of the suit land and accordingly, decreed his suit. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge modified the said finding of the trial Court and held that the plaintiff was a pattedar in possession of the part of the suit land. With this finding, the decree of the trial Court was maintained. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendant has filed this second appeal in this Court whereas the plaintiff has filed cross-objections in which it has been prayed that the plaintiff be declared a tenant on the entire suit land as found by the trial Court.

(3.) The gravamen of the learned counsel for the appellant is that from the evidence on the record, it could not be held that either the plaintiff was a tenant on a part of the land or was a pattedar as held by the lower appellate Court. According to the learned counsel, his possession was unlawful and, therefore, he will be ejected from the suit land in accordance with law.