Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1016 (HP)

Satya Devi v. State of H. P.

2011-03-07

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No.22-S/13 of 1999 whereby he rejected the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff and upheld the judgment and decree dated 6.7.1999 passed by the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Kandaghat, District Solan in Civil Suit No.127/1 of 1994 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that she is owner in possession of the suit land measuring 5-18 bighas. According to the plaintiff, the suit land alongwith other land was jointly owned and possessed by Smt.Sevti and Smt.Janki to the extent of half share and the remaining half share was owned by Sh. Dayal Singh. According to the plaintiff, Smt.Sevti had inducted the plaintiff as tenant on payment of 1/3rd Batai in the year 1966 and the plaintiff had been cultivating the suit land since then and paying rent to Smt.Seveti. It was further alleged that after coming into force of the H.P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the plaintiff had become owner in possession of the suit land. Both the courts below found the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit land but held that she was not a tenant on the suit land and, therefore, dismissed her suit. This appeal was admitted on the following questions of law: 1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree is the result of misreading, mis-appreciation as well as misinterpretation of the statements of PW/1 to PW/3 and DW/1 to DW/4, 2. Whether the impugned judgment is the result of misreading as well as mis-appreciation of documents Ext.P1 to P13 and DW1/A to DW1/H as well as DW2/A to DW2/C. A bare reading of these questions clearly shows that they relate to reading and appreciation of evidence and are not substantial questions of law. No doubt, the plaintiff and the witnesses had stated that the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant by Smt.Sevti Devi. The facts which emerge are that Dayal Singh is the son of SmtJanki Devi and Smt.Sevti Devi was his step mother. Sh.Jeet Ram, father of Dayal Singh had two wives. The case of the plaintiff that she was inducted as a tenant in the year 1966 is not supported by the revenue record. The facts which emerge are that Dayal Singh is the son of SmtJanki Devi and Smt.Sevti Devi was his step mother. Sh.Jeet Ram, father of Dayal Singh had two wives. The case of the plaintiff that she was inducted as a tenant in the year 1966 is not supported by the revenue record. The first entry in her favour appeared in the Jamabandi for the year 1974-75, Ext.DW1/B where for the first time, she was recorded in possession as ‘Gair Marusi’ but in the column of rent, it has been recorded that she is in possession of the suit land as ‘Bila Lagan Bawaja Punarth’ meaning thereby that no rent was being paid because of good services. This is not the case of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, she was paying 1/3rd of the income as rent. The plaintiff has not set up a case that she ever served Sevti. The entry referred to above cannot be termed a conventional entry. There is no explanation by the plaintiff how the old revenue record showing Sevti and Janki alongwith Dayal Singh to be in possession in the Jamabandi for the year 1969-70, Ext.P6 was changed in the year 1974 75. When there are long standing entries in the revenue record it is for the person who relies upon the changed entries to show that the entry was changed in accordance with law. It cannot be believed that in the year 1975 after the H.P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act had come into force, any person would induct a tenant because it would virtually mean that he would give up the land to the said tenant since the tenant becomes owner of the land. Therefore, the revenue record does not support the case set up by the plaintiff. If two views are possible and the courts below have taken one view then this Curt in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100, CPC will not interfere in such a judgment. Therefore, both the questions are answered against the appellant-plaintiff and in favour of the respondents-defendants. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.