VIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. GHANSHYAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present second appeal has been filed by the appellants ­ defendants against the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2011 of the learned Appellate Court of Additional District Judge, Bhadra in Civil Appeal No.01/2005 ­ Surendra Kumar & ors. vs. Ghanshyam Singh, affirming the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2005 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhadra in Civil Suit No.08/2002 ­ Ghanshyam Singh vs. Surendra s/o Mohar Singh and others decreeing the suit for possession and injunction.

(2.) THE two courts below have decreed the suit for possession and injunction in favour of the plaintiffs ­ respondents on the basis of a Patta issued by the Tehsildar. The right to issue Patta by the Tehsildar was contested before this Court in a batch of ten writ petitions viz. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 128/1968 ­ Pannalal vs. The Collector, Ganganagar, and another, which came to be decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court on March 16, 1970 holding that Collector has such right to issue Patta. The relevant extract from the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference :

(3.) THE courts below have concurrently decreed the suit for possession and eviction in favour of the plaintiff ­ respondents. Essentially the findings of the courts below are the findings of fact based on relevant evidence adduced by the plaintiffs. The authority of Tehsildar, who has issued patta in favour of the plaintiff ­ respondents is beyond the pale of doubt, in view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court quoted above. The efforts of the defendants ­ appellants at this stage to introduce 1961 documents issued in favour of their father, Mohar Singh in respect of a residential plot No.187 in Sector 2/L in Mandi Bhadra in Low Income Group Housing Scheme ("LIGH Scheme" for short), Tehsil Bhadra, district Ganganagar allotted by the Secretary, Bhakra Mandi Development Board, Hanumangarh on 22.03.1961, seeking to mix up the same with the suit land, is hardly a ground to upset the findings of the courts below, at this stage. These 1961 documents, if at all they pertained to the suit land, ought to have been produced by the defendants during trial. If the defendants have failed to produce the same before the trial court without assigning any reasonable cause for such, a huge delay to show that despite due diligence, they could not produce these documents before the learned trial court at the relevant time and that cannot be appreciated.