SAHI RAM Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The litigation between the parties concerns Survey Nos. 132, 133 and 138 in the estate of village Gignau of Tehsil Bhiwani in Hissar District. The land of those survey numbers has been in the ownership of Ram Lal, Dadu Ram and Amin Lal.

(2.) In the Jamabandi of the year 1937-38, Exhibit D. 1, in regard to Survey No. 132, the owners' name is given in the ownership column, but then it is stated that Chhail Baz and Ritu were occupancy tenants under Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (Punjab Act 16 of 1887) under the owners, and it is further stated that they were not in possession of the land, of which possession is recorded as under the owners. In regard to Survey No. 133, the name of the owners appears in the owners' column, and Ritu appears as tenant under Section 8 of Punjab Act 16 of 1887, but without possession, and the possession in again shown with the owners. As to Survey No. 138, Chhail Baz and Ritu are shown as occupancy tenants, again under Section 8 of the Punjab Act 16 of 1887, with Jai Ram as tenant-at-will under the owners, and the occupancy tenants are shown as not in possession. In the Jamabandi of 1953-54 Exhibit D. 2, in regard to Survey No. 138, the entry under the owners is Ritu, occupancy tenant not in possession, cultivation by Lachhman. It is, however, not shown that Lachhman was cultivating under whom. Probably, as the occupancy tenant was absent, he was doing so under the owners. In the Jamabandi of the same year, Exhibit D. 3, in regard to Survey Nos. 132 and 138, the entry is owners' name in the ownership column, with nothing stated with regard to the actual possession and cultivation of those survey numbers. On and from June 5, 1952, came into force the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (Punjab Act 8 of 1953), which by Section 3 of it extinguished all rights, title and interest of the owners-landlords in land of which there were occupancy tenants and vested such rights, title and interest in the land in the occupancy tenant, subject to the landlord's claim to compensation under order provisions of that Act. The person who was recorded as occupancy tenant, on and before June 15, 1952, acquired the rights, title and interest of his landlord in the land of which he was the occupancy tenant. It is in the wake of this provision that other copies of the same Jamabandi of the year 1953-54, Exhibit P. 3 and P.4 have to be understood, because in Exhibit D. 3, in relation to Survey No. 133, in the ownership column the name appears of Sahi Ram and Krishan Lal, sons of Chhail Baz, and in the cultivation column appears the name of Lachhman as cultivator exactly the same as in Exhibit D. 2. In Exhibit D. 4, similarly, in the owners' column, appear the names of Sahi Ram and Krishan Lal, sons of Chhail Baz, and in the cultivation column appears the name of one Ram Sarup with regard to Survey Nos. 132 and 138, which goes with Exhibit D. 3. In both the copies, Exhibit P. 3 and P.4, it is explained that the changes in the ownership column had been made by reason of mutation Nos. 249 and 250 having been attested in favour of Sahi Ram and Krishan Lal. This also appears in the remarks column of both Exhibit D. 2 and D.3. So this change came about because of Section 3 of Punjab Act 8 of 1953. This is as far as the entries in the Jamabandis are concerned. A Jamabandi is a record-of-right and a presumption of correctness attaches to the entries in it under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab Act 17 of 1887), but such presumption is rebuttable. It is apparent that so far as the entries in those Jamabandis are concerned, ever since the year 1937-38 down to the year 1953-54, the owners of the three survey numbers were Ram Lal, Dadu Ram and Amin Lal, under whom Chhail Baz and his brother Ritu, and subsequently Sahi Ram and Krishan Lal sons of Chhail Baz, were shown as occupancy tenants under Section 8 of the Punjab Act 16 of 1887, but the occupancy tenants were not in possession and the actual possession was either with the owners of the land or with the tenants under the owners of the land. In consequence of Punjab Act 8 of 1953, in the ownership column the names of Sahi Ram and Kishan Lal, sons of Chhail Baz came to be entered after June 15, 1952, because in the Jamabandi operating at the time they or their predecessors were shown as occupancy tenant of this land. Entries from the Khasra Girdawaris from the year 1942-43 down to the year 1953-54 have been produced which are Exhibits D. 3 and D.4. Those entries show possession of the three survey numbers either with the owners or with the tenants under the owners down to the year 1953-54. There are subsequent Khasra Girdawari entries in Exhibit D.5 from the year 1956 to 1958, in which the ownership is in the names of Sahi Ram and Kishan Lal and the possession is also shown with them. In the year 1954-55 Chandia P.W. 2 is shown in possession of Survey No. 138 as tenant under Sahi Ram and Kishan Lal, and in the year 1956-57 Surja D.W. 3 is shown in the cultivating possession of Survey Nos. 132 and 133 as tenant, with the names of Sahi Ram and Kishan Lal in the ownership column, but without any statement under whom Surja D.W. 3 was a tenant, he himself at the trial stated that he was tenant of the original owners, Ram Lal, Dadu Ram and Amin Lal.

(3.) It is in this state of the connection of the parties in regard to their relationship as landlords and occupancy tenants in the beginning as recorded in the Jamabandis and subsequent change coming about because of the operation of Punjab Act 8 of 1953 that the parties in the year 1958 instituted two suits. One suit was instituted by Ram Lal, Dadu Ram and Amin Lal for declaration that they were the owners of the land without any encumbrance, because by reason of abandonment and having regard to Section 38 of Punjab Act 16 of 1887, Chhail Baz and Ritu, recorded as occupancy tenants of this land, had ceased to be occupancy tenants leaving them as owners without the encumbrance of their occupancy tenancy and saying that the rights, title and interest given to the heirs of those occupancy tenants, who are Sahi Ram and Krishan Lal under Section 3 of Punjab Act 8 of 1953, was not on a correct application of that Act to the facts of this case. A cross-suit was at the same time instituted by Sahi Ram and Kishan Lal, claiming possession of the land on the ground that after the coming into force of Punjab Act 8 of 1953 on June 15, 1952, they had become owners of the land of the three survey numbers and Ram Lal, Dadu Ram and Amin Lal were in possession of the same against law and against their title to the same. The two suits were consolidated and tried together by the learned trial Judge. To avoid confusion the original owners of the land, namely, Ram Lal, Dadu Ram and Amin Lal, will hereafter he referred to as the plaintiffs, and the defendants of the original occupancy tenants, namely, Sahi Ram and Kishan Lal, will be referred to as the defendants. It appears that, of the original occupancy tenants, Ritu left no heir. So the sons of Chhail Baz, namely, Sahi Ram and Kishan Lal, defendants, inherited to both their father and their uncle.