Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 96 (PNJ)

Ranjit Kaur v. Ram Narain

2000-01-27

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - Ranjit Kaur and others, unsuccessful plaintiffs have filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree date 22.2.1999, passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge, Bathinda, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 5.3.1994, passed by the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Bathinda, vide which the suit of the plaintiffs for possession was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the land measuring 3 kanals 12 marlas against Ram Narain, defendant-respondent. The land was comprised in khasra No. 200 in village Nandgarh, Tehsil and District Bathinda. The case set up by the plaintiffs before the Court was that they are owners of the suit land as per jamabandi for the year 1983-84 and that the defendant had illegally occupied the same in April 1982, by forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs for which they had no right to do so. On these small allegations, the plaintiffs prayed for the decreetal of the suit. The suit was contested by the defendant and it was pleaded that the defendant and his predecessors are in possession of the suit land since the year 1957-58. Their possession was open, hostile and adverse to the real owners. In this view of the matter, the defendant has become the owner of the suit land. Initially, Atma Ram and his brothers were in possession of the suit land. Subsequently, Atma Ram alone came into the possession of the said land and after the death of Atma Ram, the defendant entered into the possession. His possession is adverse and hostile to the real owner and the defendant has become the owner of the suit land by lapse of time. It was also pleaded by the defendant that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit and that the suit is not legally maintainable. 3. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :- "1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the land in dispute ? OPP 2. Whether the defendant had taken possession of the land in dispute unlawfully from the plaintiffs in the year 1982 ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get back the possession of the land in dispute ? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. OPP 2. Whether the defendant had taken possession of the land in dispute unlawfully from the plaintiffs in the year 1982 ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get back the possession of the land in dispute ? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 6. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is false and frivolous and defendant is entitled to special costs, if so to what effect ? OPD 7. Whether the defendants have matured their title by way of adverse possession from the land in dispute ? OPD 8. Relief." 4. The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their case and the learned trial Court ultimately, dismissed the suit. On issue No. 7, the findings of the trial Court went against the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the unsuccessful plaintiffs filed the first appeal before the Court of the Addl. Distt. Judge, Bathinda, who for the reason given in para-15 of the judgment, dismissed the same. Para-15 reads as under :- "I have considered the aforesaid contentions of the Learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record placed on record by the parties. The copy of jamabandi for the year 1955-56 Ex. P5 shows that Nand Singh and Mukand Singh were owners-in-possession of the suit land. Nand Singh and Mukand Singh were predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff. The copy of jamabandi Ex. P4 for the year 1968-69 also shows Nand Singh and Mukand Singh to be owners in possession of the suit land. The copy of jamabandi Ex. P6 for the year 1973-74 shows Atma Ram father of the defendant to be in cultivating possession of the suit land. His possession is recorded as forcible and without payment of any rent. In the jamabandi Ex. P1 for the year 1978-79 Ram Narain defendant is recorded in possession of the suit land. Same entry is repeated in the jamabandi Ex. P8 and Ex. P9. The copy of khasra girdawari Ex. P-10 is from the year 1969-70 to 1973-74. The khasra girdawari shows Atma Ram to be in cultivating possession of the suit land. Thus the defendant and his predecessors-in-interest have been recorded in possession of the suit land, since the year 1973-74. Same entry is repeated in the jamabandi Ex. P8 and Ex. P9. The copy of khasra girdawari Ex. P-10 is from the year 1969-70 to 1973-74. The khasra girdawari shows Atma Ram to be in cultivating possession of the suit land. Thus the defendant and his predecessors-in-interest have been recorded in possession of the suit land, since the year 1973-74. In the copies of jamabandies Ex. D1, Ex. D2, Ex. D3 and Ex. D4, Ram Narain defendant or his father Atma Ram have been recorded in possession of the suit land. In the khasra girdawaries entries from Sauni, 1974 to Kharif 1992 Ex. D5 to Ex. D8 Ram Narain defendant or his father Atma Ram have been recorded in possession of the suit land. Thus the revenue record shows that Ram Narain or his father are continuously in possession of the suit land since the year 1974. The record further shows that the suit was filed on 19.10.1989. So, the possession of the defendant Ram Narain or his father Atma Ram was more than 15 years. So the possession of the defendants for more than 12 years before the filing of the suit is well supported by the revenue record. So the contention of the plaintiffs that suit land was occupied by the defendant in April, 1982 forcibly is not supported by the revenue record. In para No. 2 of the plaint it is alleged that defendant had illegally and forcibly occupied the suit land in April, 1982. The revenue record shows that defendant is in continuous possession of the suit land since the year 1974. At the time of filing of the suit defendants possession over the suit land was for more than 12 years and his possession has matured into title and he has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. The entire revenue record placed on the record by both the parties shows that possession of the defendant is recorded as forcibly and without payment of any rent." 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Courts below, the present appeal. 6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants was highly critical of the judgments of the Courts below by submitting that both the Courts have not rightly appreciated the evidence. 6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants was highly critical of the judgments of the Courts below by submitting that both the Courts have not rightly appreciated the evidence. The counsel submitted that the defendant-respondent failed to prove on the record that he or his predecessors were in possession of the property for a continuous period of 12 years, hostile to the plaintiffs before the institution to the suit. He submitted that it was proved on the record that in the year 1978 a Panchayat was convened in the village and the plaintiffs objected to the possession of the defendant with respect of the suit land. In this manner, the continuity of adverse and hostile possession had broken. The suit was instituted within 12 years from the year 1978 and, therefore, the possession of the defendant did not ripe into ownership on account of break in the chain of the possession. The counsel further submitted that it is the stand of the defendant in the written statement itself that the land in question was allotted to him and his predecessors during the period of consolidation and the possession was taken by them in the year 1957-58 but there is no evidence to that effect and, in this view of the matter, mere retention of possession is not adverse to the interest to the plaintiffs. 8. On the contrary, counsel for the defendant-respondent submitted that it is proved on the record that the possession of the defendant was adverse and hostile right from the year 1956-57 but any way there is enough documentary evidence to indicate that right from 1973-74, the defendant is in possession of the property forcibly and the revenue entries also indicate that the defendant is keeping the suit land without payment of any rent to anybody. Even if the possession of the defendant is treated as hostile from 1973 onwards, it remained hostile for a continuous period of 12 years and, therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs which was filed on 20.10.1989, is barred by limitation. 9. The only point which requires determination is whether the possession of the defendant has matured into possession by way of adverse possession or not. 9. The only point which requires determination is whether the possession of the defendant has matured into possession by way of adverse possession or not. In order to succeed on the plea of adverse possession, it is obligatory on the part of a person who pleads adverse possession to show that his possession was hostile, open and continuously for a period of 12 years before the institution of the suit. If these ingredients are established, there is no difficulty on the part of the Court to hold such person in adverse possession. The copy of the jamabandi, Ex. P-6, for the year 1973-74 shows that Atma Ram, father of the defendant was in cultivating possession of the suit land. The remarks in the column are very relevant which show that the possession of Atma Ram and been recorded as forcible without payment of any rent. We all know that there is a presumption of correctness attached to the jamabandi. This very entry has, again, been repeated in the jamabandi for the year 1978-79, Ex. P-1, wherein the defendant has been recorded in possession of the suit land and further this very entry is also repeated in the jamabandis Exs. P-8 and P-9. Khasra Girdawari also shows the possession of the defendant from 1969-70 to 1973-74 and these entries are in the name of Atma Ram, father of the present defendant. Thus, there is no difficulty in holding that the defendant is in possession of the property for a period of 12 years and his possession was open and hostile and to the knowledge of the plaintiffs since 1973-74. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that there was some Panchayat in the year 1978 and the plaintiffs objected to the illegal possession of the defendant, the chain of continuity of possession will not be broken or deemed to have been broken because there is no evidence at all that at any point of time after 1978, the defendant was dispossessed from the property. There is no revenue entry in favour of the plaintiffs in the column of possession from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the plaintiffs entered into the possession of the suit land. 10. There is no revenue entry in favour of the plaintiffs in the column of possession from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the plaintiffs entered into the possession of the suit land. 10. It is true that the case set up by the defendant in the written statement was that they got the possession of this land during the proceedings of consolidation, yet the suit of the plaintiffs cannot be decreed even if the defendant does not prove that aspect of the case. Once the defendant is successful in proving that earlier his father and his brothers and, thereafter, he is in continuous possession of the suit land for the last 12 years without interruption and hostile to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, he can succeed on the plea of adverse possession. Exactly has happened in the present case. 11. I do not see any reason to differ with the judgments of the Courts below. Further, I do not see any illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgments. No merit. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed.