Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1448 (PNJ)

Murari v. Lachhman Dass

2003-10-17

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2003
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Murari defendant has filed the instant Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below vide which suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession was decreed. 2. The present suit for possession of land measuring 16 kanals 3 marla situated in Village Deegh Tehsil Ballabgarh was filed by the respondent claiming himself as owner of the same. It was alleged that in the month of June, 1977, the appellant forcibly took possession of the aforesaid land without the consent of the respondent and without having any right or authority. Therefore, being a trespasser, he was having no right to remain in possession of the suit land. 3. The appellant contested the suit by alleging that he was a tenant on the land in question. Therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant was existing between the parties, it was further alleged that he had filed an application for correction of khasra girdawari and the same was accepted in his favour by the Revenue Officer, therefore, he was in legal possession of the land in question being a tenant. 4. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence of both the parties, held on issue relating to tenancy that the appellant was not a tenant on the land in question rather he was proved to be a trespasser. After recording the said finding, the suit of the respondent was decreed. In appeal the said finding of the fact was confirmed by the learned first appellate Court. Both the Courts below have recorded a pure finding of fact to the effect that the respondent was owner of the land in question. It was found that the appellant had illegally taken possession of the same in June, 1977, though earlier it was in possession of the respondent. It has also been found that the appellant has failed to prove his plea regarding tenancy. The stand taken by him that his father was tenant under the respondent in respect of the suit land for about 20 years and after his death he was in possession of the same as tenant since 5 or 6 years before institution of the suit, was not proved at all. It was further held that the appellant did not lead any evidence to establish payment of any rent to the respondent. It was further held that the appellant did not lead any evidence to establish payment of any rent to the respondent. Upto the year 1977, the land in question was recorded in possession of the respondent. Regarding the order Ex.D1 passed by the Revenue Officer for correction of khasra girdawari, it was held that no evidentary value can be attached to this order which was an ex-parte order. Particularly when admittedly the respondent was residing in Faridabad whereas in the said order he was shown to be residential of village Deegh. It was further held that in the Jamabandi for the year 1976-77, the respondent was recorded as owner in possession of the land in question and there was no basis for change of the khasra girdawari in favour of the appellant. It was also held that the aforesaid order Ex.D-1 was passed on the basis of only spot verification without referring to the jamabandi for the year 1976-77 which carries presumption of truth. 5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record of the case. 6. I am of the opinion that both the Courts below have recorded a pure finding of fact and the same does not require any interference in the Regular Second Appeal. Both the Courts below have found the appellant to be a trespasser and not a tenant on the land in question. Therefore, in my opinion there is no illegality and infirmity in the jamabandi and decree passed by both the Courts below vide which suit of the respondent was decreed. Though, learned counsel for the appellant does not raise any substantial question of law, but he has submitted that the order Ex.D1 will operate as resjudicata against the respondent. I do not find any substance in this submission as the order passed by the Revenue Court is not binding on the Civil Court. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.