Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2011 DIGILAW 1060 (SC)

Sukhdev Singh (D) Thr. Lrs v. Puran

2011-08-18

G.S.SINGHVI, H.L.DATTU

body2011
ORDER : 1. I.A. Nos.4 and 5: The delay in filing the application for bringing on record legal representatives of petitioner no.4 - Piara Singh is condoned and the application for bringing on record his legal representatives is allowed in terms of the prayer made. 2. I.A. No.9: Application for bringing on record legal representatives of respondent no.1 - Puran Singh is also allowed in terms of the prayer made. SLP(C)No. 18654 of 2008: 3. This petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby he dismissed the second appeal filed by the petitioners and upheld the judgment and decree passed by District Judge, Kurukshetra (lower appellate Court), who had dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the decree passed by Sub Judge, Kaithal (trial Court) in a suit for possession filed by the predecessor of the respondents. 4. Civil Suit No.34/E of 1964 filed by Bakhtawara and another against the Gram Panchayat for declaring them to be the owners of the suit land bearing Khewat No.385, Khatoni Nos.696 to 778 was decreed by Sub Judge, Kaithal vide judgment dated 9.2.1965 and Gram Sabha, village Bakhli and Gram Panchayat, village Bakhli were restrained from interfering with their possession. 5. Dina Nath and others filed suit for possession by relying upon decree dated 9.2.1965. Jit Singh and another contested the suit by claiming that they were in possession and that the mutation entries made in favour of the plaintiffs were illegal and not binding on them. They also pleaded that decree dated 9.2.1965 was vitiated due to fraud because the same was obtained by the plaintiffs of that suit in collusion with the Gram Panchayat. The trial Court upheld the contention of Jit Singh and another declared that decree dated 9.2.1965 was bogus and void because it was an end product of the collusion between the plaintiffs and the Gram Panchayat. The judgment of the trial Court was reversed by Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra and the suit filed by Dina Nath and others was decreed. The second appeal preferred by Jit Singh and another was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated 12.3.1984. 6. The judgment of the trial Court was reversed by Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra and the suit filed by Dina Nath and others was decreed. The second appeal preferred by Jit Singh and another was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated 12.3.1984. 6. Puran and others filed suit for possession of agricultural land measuring 97 kanals 6 marlas by asserting that they were the owners and the defendants were not vacating the suit property despite repeated demands. Sukhdev Singh (since deceased) and other defendants questioned decree dated 9.2.1965, which was relied upon by Puran and others by stating that the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat had colluded with the plaintiffs of Civil Suit No.34/E of 1964. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: "i) Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit property? OPP. (ii) Whether the defendants have become the owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession as alleged? OPP. (iii) Whether the Civil Court decree mentioned para No.3 of the written statement is null and void and does not effect the right of the plaintiff as alleged? OPD. (iv) Relief." 8. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit and held that status of the defendants was that of a trespasser. The trial Court also directed the defendants to handover possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs within two months. 9. Sukhdev Singh and others challenged the decree of the trial Court in Civil Appeal No.160/13 of 1985. Their main plea was that decree dated 9.2.1965 was nullity and that the plaintiffs did not have any right over the suit property. They also raised an objection of limitation. After evaluating the pleadings of the parties and evidence produced by them, the learned District Judge confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 10. In the second appeal filed by the petitioners, the High Court framed the following questions of law: "1. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is within limitation, being not filed within 12 years from the date of passing of Civil Court decree dated 9.2.1965? 2. Whether in view of statutory provisions of Section 122 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, the suit is within limitation from the date of sanctioning partition? 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is within limitation, being not filed within 12 years from the date of passing of Civil Court decree dated 9.2.1965? 2. Whether in view of statutory provisions of Section 122 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, the suit is within limitation from the date of sanctioning partition? 3. Whether the Courts below were justified in law to hold the judgment and decree dated 9.2.1965 as valid? 4. Whether the Courts below have mis-interpreted and mis-read the evidence regarding the plea of adverse possession raised by the appellants. 5. Whether the protection of Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 was available to the appellants" 11. The learned Single Judge answered question Nos.1, 2 and 3 in affirmative and question Nos.4 and 5 in negative and dismissed the second appeal. 12. We have heard Shri Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the petitioners at considerable length and carefully perused the record. 13. Although, in the memo of special leave petition the petitioners have questioned the impugned judgment and the decree passed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that in view of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain Civil Suit No.34/E of 1964 and that being "Shamlat Deh", the suit land vested in the Panchayat, but at the commencement of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly stated that these questions were not raised before the trial Court, the lower appellate Court and the High Court. He, however, argued that the petitioners are entitled to the protection of Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short, "the 1953 Act"). 14. In our view, the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel does not merit acceptance. Admittedly, the petitioners were granted lease of the suit land in 1955 for a period of 20 years and the term of their lease ended in 1975. Section 9 of the 1953 Act is attracted only when a tenant is sought to be evicted. The said section is not applicable to a case where the tenancy gets terminated by efflux of time and the person occupying the lease premises no longer remains tenant. Section 9 of the 1953 Act is attracted only when a tenant is sought to be evicted. The said section is not applicable to a case where the tenancy gets terminated by efflux of time and the person occupying the lease premises no longer remains tenant. There is no provision in the 1953 Act similar to those contained in the Urban Rent Control Legislations under which a tenant becomes statutory tenant after expiry of the contractual tenure of the tenancy. 15. We are further of the view that the learned Single Judge had rightly refused to annul decree dated 9.2.1965 passed in Civil Suit No.34/E of 1964 because the said decree had been upheld by the High Court by dismissing the second appeal by Jit Singh and others. A number of appeals filed against the judgments similar to the one rendered by the learned Single Judge on 12.3.1984 were dismissed by this Court. The details of these appeals are set out at pages 138 and 139 of the paper book. 16. In the result, the special leave petition is dismissed.