Faridabad Complex Administration vs Vijay Kumar and ors.

M. S. Liberhan, J. (Oral)

In this appeal, the short facts are : The plaintiffs sought an injunction against the defendant restraining it from interfering with their possession of the suit land except in accordance with law. The plaintiffs claimed themselves to be tenants having succeeded to late Ramesh Chand their father and husband respectively who was inducted as a tenant by the Gram Panchayat. Defendant is the successor of Gram Panchayat. The defendant controverted the said allegations. He denied the possession of the plaintiffs as well as the relationship of landlord and tenant and challenged the correctness of revenue records. It was averred that the suit was not maintainable.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

(i) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of suit land ? OPP

(ii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD (iii) Relief.

The trial Court found. the plaintiffs to be in possession, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and suit to be maintainable. The suit was decreed to the extent that the defendant was restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs except in" accordance with law." The defendant challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court in appeal and the plaintiffs preferred crossobjection and challenged the findings with respect to relationship of landlord and tenant. The lower appellate Court, after reappraising the evidence, oral as well as documentary came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were in possession and held relationship of landlord and tenant to be existing, The judgment and decree of the trial Court was modified to the above extent and the suit was decreed.

The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree of the Courts below. Counsel for appellant contends that the finding given by the lower appellate Court with respect to relationship of landlord and tenant is uncalled for and further contends that no tenancy can be created except by an instrument in writing. There should not have been any finding with respect to relationship of landlord and tenant and the question should have been left open to be taken before a competent Court.

I do not find any force in the submissions made by counsel for appellant. No provision of law has been cited at the bar by which the lease could have been created by the panchayat i.e. predecessor in interest of the appellant by an instrument in writing alone. Otherwise too, the appellant never raised such a contention in the Courts below nor any issue specifically was claimed by the parties. No evidence on this aspect of the matter has been brought on record Exhibit P. 6 i. e. Jamabandi relating to the period 195657 which categorically shows that the plaintiffs father and husband respectively had been inducted as a tenant by the Gram Panchayat It carries presumption of truth. There is nothing on record to rebut the same. No error has been pointed out in appreciation of evidence, documentary as well as oral. The finding with respect to relationship of landlord and tenant is purely based on facts and cannot be interfered with in the regular second appeal.

There is no reason advanced why the question of relationship of landlord and tenant be kept open. The object of litigation is not to enlarge the scope of litigation and keep the things unsettled. The attempt should be to shorten it.

In view of the above observations. I do not find any force in this appeal and dismiss the same with costs which are assessed at Rs. 500/.