Babu Ram vs Ghasita Ram

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is defendant''s Second Appeal against whom suit for possession has been decreed by both the courts below.

Ghasita Ram filed a suit for declaration and possession to the effect that he was the owner of land measuring 3K 17M and that the defendant had no concern with it. It was pleaded that once the defendant was tenant at will under him but he had surrendered the vacant possession of the suit land in his favour on 21st June, 1984, after receiving a sum of Rs. 350/- as compensation from the plaintiff vide writing Ex. P1 and that after surrendering the vacant possession of the suit land the defendant was left with no right at all in the suit land, whereas he had taken illegal possession of the suit land along with other land of the plaintiff and cut and removed the crops. His possession of the land was that of a trespasser.

The stand taken by the defendant in the written statement was that he was in cultivating possession of the suit land as a tenant for the last more than ten years and he had never surrendered the possession of the land to the plaintiff, as alleged. He denied execution of writing Ex P 1 for accepting Rs. 350/- as compensation.

The trial court negatived the plea of the defendant and came to the conclusion that the writing Ex. P 1 was executed by him and he had accepted Rs. 350/- on account of compensation and thereafter he (the defendant) was not in possession of the suit property as a tenant but was a trespasser thereon. Consequently, the suit was decreed In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the findings of the trial court and maintained the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff It was categorically found by the lower appellate court that "rather, in view of Ex. P 1 and in view of the statement of Shri D. C. Sangba, it has to be held that on 21-6 84, possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiff and the defendant had surrendered his rights after receipt of Rs. 350/- as compensation from the plaintiff".

Learned counsel for the defendant/appellant submitted that there was no occasion for surrendering the possession of the suit land, and as a matter of fact, the defendant never surrendered the possession as alleged. He continued to be in possession throughout prior to the execution of the writing P 1 as well as thereafter and that being so, the finding of the courts below in this behalf was wholly erroneous It was also submitted that though u/s 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, surrender of possession by a lessee was also one of the modes of determining the lease but by virtue of Section 107, the same did not apply to the agricultural land. Thus argued the learned counsel, there was no valid termiation of the tenancy, and, therefore, the defendant continued to be the tenant on the suit land.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff/ respondent, on the other hand, submitted that on appreciation of the entire evidence it had been concurrently found by both the Courts below that the writing P 1 was duly executed by the defendant and thereunder he accepted Rs 350/- by way of compensation. That being a finding of fact could not be interfered with in Second Appeal.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on record I find no mrerits in this case. Once the execution of writing Ex. P1 was accepted, it became immaterial whether the defendant continued to be in occupation of the suit land thereafter, as entered in the Khasra Girdawari. The basis of the suit was the writing under which the defendant had surrendered the possession after accepting the compensation amount. Once this writing is held to be a geniune document, no interference is possible in Second Appeal. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.