Ram Kumar vs Vishal and others

Impugned in the present regular second appeal is the judgment dated 13.08.2004 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra, affirming the

judgment and decree dated 16.02.2012 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kurukshetra, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff-

respondent No.1 was decreed to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of suit land along with mesne profits for use and

occupation of the suit property after 24.02.2008 @ Rs.1,000/- per month till the date of delivery of actual physical possession. The defendants were

directed to hand over the vacant possession of the property in question. The counter claim filed by the defendants was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff had filed a suit for possession of land measuring 8 marlas, being 8/54 share out of total land measuring 2 kanals 14 marlas comprised in

Khewat Khetoni No.188 min/251 min, Rect. No.72, Khasra No.16 min (2-14), the boundaries of which have been mentioned in the plaint. He also

claimed mesne profits @ Rs.1,000/- per month along with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 24.02.2008 till the date of delivery of actual possession.

It was stated that the land was given on lease from 25.02.1988 to Kapoor Chand predecessor-in-interest of defendants on payment of rent

@ Rs.500/- per year. The term of Chakotanama expired on 24.02.2008. The defendants have not paid Chakota money to the plaintiff for the last more

than five years in spite of repeated demands. Therefore, the suit was filed.

In the written statement, the defendants took the stand that the land was taken on lease for 20 years up to 24.02.2008. The lease is further to be

extended/renewed for a period of 20 years by enhancing the rent to the tune of 25% at the option of the defendants. The defendants denied that they

are chronic defaulters. They claimed that they had paid rent till 24.02.2007 to the plaintiff. The defendants offered rent @ Rs.625 per year to the

plaintiff at the enhanced rate but the plaintiff did not accept the same. It was further stated that the land has fallen in the municipal area and now the

defendants have become statutory tenants.

The defendants also filed counter claim, claiming that lease deed should be extended for another 20 years up to 24.02.2028.

From the pleadings, following issues were framed:

 “1.Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit land and the same as given by the father of the plaintiff to the father of the defendants on Chakota

as alleged? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit property as the defendants have been failed to pay the Chakota money? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mense profits @ Rs.1000/- per month along with upto date interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 24.2.2008 till

actual delivery of possession? OPP

If issues No.1 and 3 are proved in favour of plaintiff then as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants

from changing the nature of the suit property? OPP

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?

Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file and cause of action to file and maintain the present suit? OPD

Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD

Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts from this court? OPD

Whether the defendants are entitled for mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff for extending or renewing the Chakotanama for a further period

of 20 years? OPD

Relief.â€​

The trial Court after examining the evidence came to the conclusion that the defendants could not prove that the land has fallen within the municipal

area. The counter claim was declined and consequently, the decree of possession was passed, which was upheld in appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.

Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the statement of DW2, Sandeep Sharma (Building Inspector), Municipal Council, Ladwa. His

statement shows that though in his examination-in-chief, he stated that the land bearing khasra No.72/16/1/2 and 72/16/1/3 falls under the Municipal

Limits, Ladwa and also brought he site plan but in his cross-examination, he admitted that it is not the site plan, which was attached with the

Notification and the site plan produced by him does not bear the signatures of anybody. He further stated that if the land falls within the Municipal

Limits, the house tax is recovered. However, he could not say whether any house tax is imposed upon the suit property or not?

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the disputed property is in fact a passage to the petrol pump in possession of the defendants.

There are concurrent findings of two Courts below that the defendants have failed to prove that the disputed land falls within the Municipal Limits of

Ladwa. The defendants have not produce the site plan to show that khasra number in dispute has also fallen in the Municipal Limits. In the absence of

convincing documentary evidence, the oral statement, if any, is to be disbelieved. It being so, there is no ground to interfere in the findings recorded by

two Courts below that the defendants have failed to prove that the disputed property falls in Municipal Limits of Ladwa. Further, since the property is

a passage and is not being used for agriculture purpose, the Civil Court is competent to order the ejectment. On the expiry of the lease on 24.02.2008,

the defendants never approached the plaintiff for extension of lease deed nor availed any remedy before any Court. Therefore, the counter claim filed

by the defendants was rightly rejected by the trial Court. No law point is involved in the present regular second appeal.

As such, the present regular second appeal is dismissed. Since, the main appeal has been dismissed, therefore, pending application, if any, also stands

disposed of.