Faridabad Complex Administration vs Diwan Chand

J.V. Gupta, J.

This is defendant''s second appeal against whom the suit for the grant of the permanent injunction has been decreed by both the Courts below.

Dewan Chand, plaintiff filed the suit for the grant of the permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing him forcibly and without due process of law from the land, in dispute, on the ground that he was in cultivating possession of the land measuring 66 Kanals 18 Marlas as a tenant under it. He has previously filed a suit against it restraining it from interfering with the land measuring 26 Kanals 18 Marlas which was decreed in his favour. Now the defendant had started giving threats to dispossess him from the land, in dispute, measuring 40 Kanals; hence the present suit. According to him, he was in cultivating possession of the suit land as a tenant and the defendant had no right to dispossess him therefrom forcibly. In the written statement, it was pleaded that the defendant was the sole owner of the suit land. The plaintiff was a leasee of another parcel of land measuring 26 Kanals 18 Marlas for the years 197879 and 197980. As regards the present suit, the plaintiff was in unlawful possession of the suit land. The trial Court found that the plaintiff was the tenant in cultivating possession of the suit land and accordingly, decreed his suit. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge modified the said finding of the trial Court and held that the plaintiff was a pattedar in possession of the part of the suit land. With this finding, the decree of the trial Court was maintained. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendant has filed this second appeal in this Court whereas the plaintiff has filed crossobjections in which it has been prayed that the plaintiff be declared a tenant on the entire suit land as found by the trial Court.

The gravamen of the learned counsel for the appellant is that from the evidence on the record, it could not be held that either the plaintiff was a tenant on a part of the land or was a pattedar as held by the lower appellate Court. According to the learned counsel, his possession was unlawful and, therefore, he will be ejected from the suit land in accordance with law.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in the earlier suit relating to 26 Kanals 18 Marlas of land, the plaintiff was held to be a tenant and the present parcel of land being a part thereof, the plaintiff was a tenant on the suit land and the finding of the trial Court in this behalf was correct.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on the record, I am of the considered opinion that no such finding as to whether the plaintiff was a pattedar or a tenant over the suit land could be given in the present suit. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below in this behalf are set aside. Since the plaintiff is admittedly in possession of the suit land, the question of his status over the land, in dispute, will be determined in appropriate proceedings and, therefore, the said question is left open. It is not disputed that the plaintiff will be dispossessed from the suit land only in accordance with law.

With those observations, the crossobjections are dismissed whereas the appeal is disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

Orderd accordingly.