Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 199 (HP)

Hari Ram v. Pano Devi

2008-05-07

RAJIV SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT (Rajiv Sharma, J.) - The Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge Una, HP, passed in Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1992/RBT of 1993 dated 27.12.1995. 2.The brief facts necessary for the adjuciation of the Second Appeal are that the plaintiff, respondents (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiffs’ for the convenience sake) had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the appellent-defendants (hereinafter referred as ‘dependents’ for convenience sake). The case set up by the plaintiffs in the suit was that the land in question measuring 10 Kanal 11 Marls comprising Khasra Nos. 51, 52, 54, 297 and 301 was in possession of Maghar as tenant on payment of rent under the owner for the last many years. Shri Maghar dies on 26.10.1980 and he had become owner of the land by virtue of H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act w.e.f. appointed day i.e. 30.10.1975. Since Maghar dies without any make issue and was succeeded by his daughters i.e. plaintiffs and Smt Stya Devi as owner in possession. The defendants No. 1 & 2 on the basis of this statement made by Smt. Satya Devi without their knowledge, procured an order from C.O. Una on 17.12.1985 in their favour. The defendants No. 1 & 2 had pleaded that the land in question was in ‘Hissadari” possession of the owners and it was never in possession of Maghar in any capacity at any time. In other words, it was pleaded that Maghar had not become owner of the land. They have also placed reliance upon the Gift Deed made in favour of Smt. Satya Devi by Maghar. 3.The learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties had framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff alongwith defendant No. 3 are owner in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP 1-A. Whether Maghar was tenant of suit land and had become its owner as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 4. Relief. 4.The learned Trial Court recorded the following findings on the issues framed for determination: Issue No. 1 No Issue No. 1-A No Issue No. 2 Yes Issue No. 3 No Relief Suit dismissed as per operative part of the judgment. OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 4. Relief. 4.The learned Trial Court recorded the following findings on the issues framed for determination: Issue No. 1 No Issue No. 1-A No Issue No. 2 Yes Issue No. 3 No Relief Suit dismissed as per operative part of the judgment. 5.The learned trial Court dismissed the suit preferred by the plaintiffs against which they preferred an appeal before the Learned District Judge, Una. The learned District Judge, Una has framed the following points for determination. 1. Whether the findings of the Id Trial Court are sustainable in the eyes of law? 2. Relief 6.The learned District Judge, Una has recorded the following findings on the points for determination framed by him. Point No. 1 No ReliefAppeal accepted for operative part of the judgment. 7.The learned District Judge, Una allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs on 27.12.1995. 8.Mr.Praneet Gupta, Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendants appellants had strenuously argued that the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge Una dated 27.12.1995 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He then contended that the learned District Judge had mis-read the misconstrued the oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record. 9.Mr.R.K.Gautam, Senior Advocate with Ms.Archna Dutta, Advocate had supported the judgment of the learned District Judge, Una dated 27.12.1995. 10.This Regular Second appeal was admitted on substantial question of law attached with the appeal which reads thus: 1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Court is vitiated on account of misreading the documentary as well as oral evidence besides pleadings? 2. Whether the judgment of the learned lower appellate Court is vitiated on account of misreading the document Exhibit PW-3 placed on record; the order of the Consolidation Officer, Una? 11.Since both these questions are inter-connected, they have been taken up together for adjudication. 12.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 13.Ext.P-9 is the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1962-63, Ext. P-7 is the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1967-68. Ext.P-6 is the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1972-73, Ext. 11.Since both these questions are inter-connected, they have been taken up together for adjudication. 12.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 13.Ext.P-9 is the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1962-63, Ext. P-7 is the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1967-68. Ext.P-6 is the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1972-73, Ext. P-5 is the copy of jamabandi for the year 1978-79 and Ext.P-2 & Ext.D-1 are copies of jamabandis for the year 1984-85 mentioning Maghar, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant/respondent No. 3 in possession as a tenant under the owners. Maghar had dies on 26.10.1980. The appellants/defendants had placed reliance on order dated 17.12.1985 passed by C.O.Una vide Ext.P-3. It appears from the record that an application for correction of disputes khasra numbers was filed by the appellants against the proforma defendant Smt.Satya Devi. The application was filed on 7.11.1984 and had been decided on 17.12.1985. The corrections were ordered by the C.O. on the basis of the statement and Gift Deed. Mr. Praneet Gupta has failed to show from the record that the statement of the plaintiffs was ever recorded while effecting the changes by the C.O. As far as Ext.P-4 is concerned , this statement has been made by Sh. Kartar Singh, husband of respondent No. 3 - Smt. Stya Devi. Smt. Satya Devi had only 1/3rd share out of the total land and she could not alienate the share of other co-shares i.e. plaintiffs. This statement made by the husband Kartar Singh could not bind the plaintiffs. The Order passed by the C.O. dated 17.12.1985 was a nullity as rightly observed by learned District Judge, Una. 14.PW-1 Surinder Kumar has proved the death certificate Ex.P-1, PW-2 Bhandari Singh in the Mukhtiar of one of the plaintiffs and has clearly stated above the possession of Maghar since 1947. PW-3 Kishan Chand has corroborated the statement of the plaintiff. PW-4 Rajinder Prasad, Patwari has mentioned about the proceedings during consolidation. DW-1 Hari Ram has mentioned that the Gift Deed made by Maghar in favour of Smt. Satya Devi in the year 1971. Shri Maghar had become owner of the property after coming into possession of H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act w.e.f. 30.10.1975. He has not absolute owner of the land in the year 1971. DW-1 Hari Ram has mentioned that the Gift Deed made by Maghar in favour of Smt. Satya Devi in the year 1971. Shri Maghar had become owner of the property after coming into possession of H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act w.e.f. 30.10.1975. He has not absolute owner of the land in the year 1971. Thus, he could not make gift of the property to Smt. Satya Devi as stated by DW-1 Hari Ram DW-2 Sita Ram and DW-3 Khushi Ram had supported the appellants/defendants to the effect that they were in possession of the land. Cumulatively, it is evident from the evidence brought on record oral as well as documentary that right from 1962-63 onwards for more than 2- years. Meghar, predecessor in-interest of the plaintiffs and respondent No. 3 Smt Satya Devi was duly recorded as tenant over the suit land. He became owner of the land w.e.f. 3.10.1975. It has come in the statement of the plaintiffs that wheat was also grown on the land in question. Once Maghar had become owner of the land, his daughters i.e. Smt. Satya Devi were to succeed under the Hindu Succession Act. 15.The trial Court was bound to consider the revenue entries existing w.e.f. 1962-63 onwards coupled with the fact that H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act was also enforced w.e.f. 30.10.1975. The presumption of truth is attached to the jamabandis which the defendants/appellants have failed to rebut. The finding recorded by the learned Appellate Court with regard to the possession is also reaffirmed by this Court. The revenue entries as per statement made by the defendants/appellants is only on the basis of the order passed by the C.O. on 17.12.1985. The C.O. could not pass the order merely on the basis of the statement made by the husband of respondent No. 3 Smt. Stya Devi and Gift Deed made in the year 1971. There is overwhelming evidence on record to the effect that Maghar was earlier the tenant under the owners and thereafter coming into force of the H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act w.e.f. 3.10.1975, he had become absolute owner of the property. There is overwhelming evidence on record to the effect that Maghar was earlier the tenant under the owners and thereafter coming into force of the H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act w.e.f. 3.10.1975, he had become absolute owner of the property. C.M.P No. 563 of 2007 16.This application for placing on record Annexure A-1 and Jamabandi for the year 1972-73 at this belated stage of hearing is liable to be dismissed, more particularly when Maghar had become absolute owner automatically after the commencement of the H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act w.e.f. 3.10.1975. 17.Accordingly, there is no substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal and the same is dismissed, being devoid of any merit. The parties will bear their own costs. M.R.B. ———————