Nanhu vs Gram Panchayat of Village Shahpur Taga and Another

Mahesh Grover, J.—This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 12.1.2009 and 7.4.2009 passed respectively by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ganaur (hereinafter referred to as `the trial Court'') and the District Judge, Sonipat (described hereinafter as `the First Appellate Court'') whereby the suit and the appeal of the plaintiff appellant have been dismissed.

A suit for permanent injunction was preferred by the appellant seeking to restrain the defendants-respondents from interfering in his possession over the suit land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. It was pleaded by him that he was cultivating the suit land, which was previously owned by respondent No. 1, as a gair morushi for the last 35 years, but later on, Collector, Sonipat, vide his order dated 15.6.1976, had declared that respondent No. 1 had no right to keep the land more than 25 per cent of the total land of the village. It was further pleaded that as a consequence of the aforesaid order, the land in the hands of respondent No. 1 which was excess of 25% of the total land of the village, was declared surplus and thereafter, the suit land came into physical possession of the appellant and he has been cultivating the same as gair morushi for the last three decades. It was averred that the entries in the revenue record in favour of respondent No. 2 qua the suit land are illegal, null & void and that on the strength of these entries, he is seeking to interfere in his peaceful possession over the same. It was further averred that some persons from the village had filed an application u/s 7 of the Punjab Village Common (Lands) Act, 1961 whereupon an order was passed by the Collector, Sonipat, but later on, against that order, a writ petition was filed before this Court wherein a finding was returned that since the land had already been declared surplus, it can be dealt with in accordance with law. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 in collusion with senior officials of the district wants to evict the appellant forcibly from the suit land.

Notice of the suit was given to the respondents. Despite notice, respondent No. 1 did not appear and was proceeded against ex parte. In his written statement, respondent No. 2 denied the possession of the appellant over the suit land. He pleaded that the appellant in collusion with respondent No. 1 wanted to cause loss to him and to grab the suit land, revenue documents have been forged. He further pleaded his possession over the suit land.

The parties went to trial on the following issues:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction with regard to the suit land detailed in para No. 1 of the plaint as prayed for? OPP

Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

Relief.

While deciding issue No. 1, the trial Court concluded that the revenue entries existing in favour of the appellant were without any basis and accordingly, it discarded them. It also concluded that the appellant was not in possession of the suit land even if erroneous entries were there in the revenue record. The suit was accordingly dismissed. In appeal, the findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the First Appellate Court.

Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the appellant has filed this appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are erroneous and perverse and, therefore, deserve to be set aside as there is complete misreading of evidence on record. He further contended that there are revenue entries in favour of the appellant which could not be ignored as presumption of truth is attached to them. According to him, the following questions of law arise for consideration by this Court:

Whether the ld. Courts below have mis-red and misinterpreted the evidence on record?

Whether the jamabandis showing the possession of the appellant could be ignored?

Whether the suit of the appellant could be dismissed even when the original owner did not contest the possession and the suit?

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and have perused the impugned judgments.

It is apparent that originally the suit was preferred against Gram Panchayat only, which lends some credence to the plea taken by respondent No. 2 that the suit was collusive in nature. It was respondent No. 2, who moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. to get himself impleaded as a party. The appellant had pleaded that he was a gair morushi on the suit land for the last three decades. No such evidence was brought by him to show that he had ever paid rent to the Gram Panchayat, who was recorded as owner of the suit land prior to the year 1988-89. There is also nothing to show as to how the revenue entries were reflected in favour of the appellant except for the fact that in the year 1988-89, this land was on lease with him for one year. Thereafter, there is no material to suggest that the lease had been either extended or renewed. There is also no evidence to show that the Gram Panchayat had ever inducted the appellant as tenant over the suit land. In this view of the matter, when a pure finding of fact has been returned regarding the appellant being not in possession of the suit land, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is misreading of evidence, cannot be accepted. Rather, the Courts below have referred to the testimony of the appellant, who could not even tell as to what kind of crops he was sowing and reaping in the suit land if he was in possession of the suit land for the last thirty years. He was also ignorant about the crop which was standing in the fields at the time when his statement was recorded.

In this view of the matter, the questions of law which have been posed by the learned Counsel for the appellant do not arise for consideration of this Court for the reason that pure and simple question of fact has been determined by the Courts below. No perversity has been shown in the findings recorded in the impugned judgments.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of any merit.