RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. SMADH BABA SANTOKH GIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel for the appellants cites 1998(1) Recent Revenue Reports 533 and 1997 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 6 and submits that even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the lease-deed Ex. D1 dated 6.7.1987 was unregistered, still it can be determined about the nature of the possession of the appellants and admittedly the revenue record shows that the appellants were the tenants at will and in these circumstances a valid presumption of lessee should be drawn in favour of the appellants. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel that in a different litigation the plaintiff had admitted that the defendants were the lessees of the land in dispute. Moreover, PW2, the witness of the plaintiff, has also made an admission that the defendant-appellants are in possession of the suit land in the capacity of lessee and that he had executed the Pattanama in favour of the appellant-defendants.

(2.) I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants and in my opinion none of the contentions can advance the case of the appellants. The case of the appellants was specific that they took the land in dispute on lease vide lease deed dated 6.7.1987. Admittedly, this document is neither stamped nor registered. This document is a waste paper and can only be looked into for collateral purposes. The relationship of the landlord and tenant can only be created by an agreement. Once the effect of document Ex. D.1 is diluted to the level of collateral purpose, it can be reasonably inferred that no relationship of landlord and tenant was created between the parties and in this view of the matter the status of the possession of the appellants will only be of a trespasser and, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff-respondent has been rightly decreed. In this regard, I may quote the following observations made by the first Appellate Court as contained in para Nos. 8 to 10 of the judgment dated 31.3.1999 :