RAM CHAND Vs. BHOPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 03.10.1986, passed by the Addl.District Judge, Ferozepur in the suit for declaration and injunction, filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 4, by holding that the defendant No.1/appellant was not a tenant under the defendants No.3 to 5 regarding land measuring 46 kanals 18 marlas. Resultantly, the suit for injunction, restraining the defendants permanently from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs, was decreed.

(2.) The reasoning given by the Addl.District Judge, to whom the suit had been transferred by the District Judge, vide order dated 24.09.1986, was that the appellant herein was claiming his status on the basis of an entry made on 06.04.1981, by the Revenue Official, Mukhtiar Singh, Kanungo. While examining the record in detail, it was noticed that neither the said official had summoned the person in whose name the khasra girdawari was changed and as per Rule 9.13 of the Punjab Land Records Manual, the returns of the Khariff and Rabi crops had to reach to the Tehsil within one month of the date on which the girdawari commenced those of extra rabi by 1st June. Accordingly, it was held that the Kanungo should have checked the khasra girdawari and the principles of natural justice had been violated as Mukhtiar Singh, DW-5 did not summon anyone while effecting the change and the khasra girdawari and the change on the spot was not supported by any other oral evidence and even contradicted by PW-1 Ram Kumar, who was supposed to be the witness to the change on an inspection done on 16.04.1981. Resultantly, it was held that the official was not competent to effect the change and the change could only have been effected on the consent of the parties and once other persons were not summoned and entry was made illegally and contrary to the Punjab Land Records Manual and only on the basis of a stray entry, the possession, as such, as a tenant, was not supported by any iota of documentary evidence, which would not be considered.

(3.) It was further noticed that Ram Chand-appellant never appeared as a witness but his attorney, Sadhu Ram, his brother had appeared through whom the present appeal has also been filed. The brother had vouched for the possession, as such, of defendant No.1 as a tenant of Kanshi Ram and on account of the oral statement, the same was not taken into consideration, in view of the positive statements of PW-10, Sunil Kumar, son of Kanshi Ram, who was the original owner of the land through his ancestors. Similarly, statement of PW-2, Harpal Singh, who had sold the land, was also taken into consideration that Ram Chand did not figure, as such, in the revenue record and was not a tenant. It was further noticed that defendant No.1 had made a statement as Ext.PW-12 in the proceedings under Sec. 145 Crimial P.C., 1973 wherein he himself had admitted that he was not cultivating any land under defendant No.5 as a tenant and thus, an adverse inference was also held to be against the defendant-appellants. Resultantly, it was held that defendants No.3 to 5 were in possession of the suit land who got possession through Sunil Kumar and other heirs of Kanshi Ram and the plaintiffs had obtained possession on the basis of Ext.P-2, which is an agreement to sell in their favour and therefore, defendant No.1 had never been a tenant, while deciding issues No.1 and 7. Under issues No.2, 3, 4 and 6, it was held that no argument had been addressed by the defendants on the said issues and the same were decided against defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs.