RAJ KUMAR AND ORS Vs. RAJBIR & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal has been directed against judgments and decrees passed by the courts whereby suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by Har Chand (since deceased) represented by his LRs and Ishwar son of Laxman was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dtd. 13/6/2011 and the plaintiffs remained unsuccessful before the first Appellate Court that affirmed findings of the trial court. The appellants claimed that they are joint tenants in possession of agricultural land measuring 42 kanal 5 marlas, situated in village Dharwanwas Tehsil Tosham District Bhiwani, detailed in para 1 (unnumbered) of judgment of the trial court vide jamabandi for the year 2001-02 and entries in khasra girdawari in the name of respondents- defendants from kharif 1993 till date and entries in the column of cultivation of jamabandi for the year 1996-97 to 2001-02 are wrong, illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be corrected. They also prayed for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in joint possession as tenants over the land in dispute.

(2.) There is no dispute between the parties that Bhuru had three sons namely Kanhi Ram, Hari Chand and Laxman. Laxman died and left behind Ishwar, his son (plaintiff No. 2). Kanhi Ram died leaving behind three sons namely Hawa Singh, Mange and Mahabir. Mange and Mahabir are defendants No. 1 and 2. Hawa Singh died and Manoj defendant No. 3 is his son. Bhuru was a tenant on land measuring 42 kanal 5 marlas at nominal lagan of Rs.13.00 per annum.

(3.) The case set up by the plaintiffs is that after death of Bhuru, defendants No. 1 to 3 in collusion with each other had got their names entered in the girdawari for kharif 1993 as successors of Bhuru. All the male legal descendants of Bhuru inherited tenancy rights under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act read with the Punjab Tenancy Act. It is averred that entries showing the defendants only as tenants from kharif 1993 till date are wrong, without jurisdiction and without notice to the plaintiffs, thus, not binding upon their rights. After death of Bhuru, plaintiffs alongwith defendants are jointly cultivating the land. The entries in the column of cultivation showing the defendants only as tenants are wrong, null and void. Plaintiffs came to know about the wrong entries when the defendants refrained the plaintiffs to cultivate the land.