Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devender vs Reshma And Others on 5 July, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083508
RSA-5659-2019 (O&M) --1--
105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-5659-2019 (O&M)
Decided on:-05.07.2024
Devender ....Appellant..
vs.
Reshma and others ....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. S.K. Kaushik, Advocate,
for the appellant.
*****
HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)
CM-6472-C-2024
Prayer in this application is for bringing on record the legal
representative(s) of appellant (since deceased).
Having heard learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner and
gone through the contents of the application, same is allowed and person
mentioned in para 2 of the application is ordered to be impleaded as legal
representative(s) of deceased-appellant.
Amended memo of parties is taken on record.
Main case
By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the
judgments and decrees dated 11.02.2016 and 02.08.2019 respectively passed
by the Courts below, whereby a suit for declaration and permanent
injunction, filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff, stands dismissed.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083508
RSA-5659-2019 (O&M) --2--
2. Briefly stating, appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration
about challenge to the jamabandi entries and permanent injunction qua
possession while pleading that his grand-father-Bhajan was tenant over the
disputed land measuring 54 kanals 08 marlas as per jamabandi for the year
2006-07, situated within the revenue estate of village Tosham, Tehsil
Tosham, District Bhiwani. Later on, his grand-father Bhajan along with
Phool Singh, Ram Swaroop and Hari Kishan jointly purchased ½ share of
the total land measuring 88 kanals 6 marlas vide sale deed dated 23.09.1969
from its previous owner Bishambhar Dass and remaining ½ share was
owned by Smt.Jain Devi, Devender Kumar and Raj Kumar. The
predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff was tenant under all the owners and it was
duly recorded in Jamabandi for the years 1966-67. Jain Devi, Devender
Kumar and Raj Kumar died and their ownership rights were inherited by
defendants No.1 to 12. After the part of area purchased by grand-father,
Bhajan and his brothers, the entries were made in their name in the column
of ownership but the tenancy rights never came to an end but the entry in the
column of possession were wrongly made as "Bhajan Khud Kast Hissedar"
which later in 1991-92 jamabandi were further changed to "khud kast".
Hence, the suit.
3. In response, defendants No.1 to 12 filed joint written
statement. In the written statement, stand taken by the respondents-
defendants was that the land in dispute was under self-cultivation and there
was no tenant there upon and they being the owners in possession of the
same, the jamabandi entries were correct and as such prayed that the suit
was liable to be dismissed.
4. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.02.2016
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083508
RSA-5659-2019 (O&M) --3--
dismissed the suit filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff.
Aggrieved thereof, an appeal came to be filed and the same
was dismissed as well by the Court of District Judge, Bhiwani vide
judgment and decree dated 02.08.2019. Hence, the present appeal.
5. Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees,
learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Courts below went wrong
while non-suiting the appellant-plaintiff on the ground of limitation. He
submits that though finding was recorded by the Courts below that
appellant-plaintiff came to know about the change of entries from tenancy to
self-cultivation in the year 1994-95, whereas, the same goes contrary to the
pleadings set-up by the appellant-plaintiff in the plaint which no where
reflects that he came to know about the change of the entries in the year
1994-95 and thus the suit could not have been dismissed being barred by
limitation.
He further submits that the tenancy of the grand-father of the
appellant-plaintiff over the land in question was duly recorded in the
jamabandi for the year 1966-67 (Ex.P3) whereas the said entry was changed
without adopting proper procedure or issuance of notice to the effected
parties and thus the same, including the subsequent entries were to be
ignored. No other argument has been addressed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone
through the paper book. I am unable to find substance in the submissions
made on behalf of the appellant.
7. In the present case, perusal of paper book shows that in the
jamabandi for the year 1962-1963 (Ex.D2), the name of Bhajan i.e. the
grand-father of the appellant-plaintiff was never recorded as tenant and the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083508
RSA-5659-2019 (O&M) --4--
entry about his tenancy came up to be recorded for the first time in the
jamabandi for the year 1966-67 and that too, without there being any order
by the competent authority or being result of any quasi judicial proceeding.
Later in all the subsequent revenue entries from 1971-72 onwards on the
basis of sale deed dated 23.09.1969, the possession of Bhajan was recorded
as "khud kast Hissedar" and "khud kast". In such circumstances, when the
stray entry of Bhajan being recorded as tenant over the land in question was
made in the jamabandi for the year 1966-67, without following the statutory
procedure or notice to the effected parties, no benefit of the same can be
drawn by the appellant-plaintiff to establish the claim about his grand-father-
Bhajan being taken over the said land.
8. Regarding the entry of self-cultivation by the co-owners, the
change in the entries were made in the year 1971-72, whereas the suit in
hand was filed after unexplained and inordinate delay in the year 2011. In
the present case, the change of the entries was made during the life time of
the grand-father/father of appellant-plaintiff, yet, he never ever assailed
those changes from his tenancy to the self-cultivation by all the co-sharers
including the predecessor in-interest of the respondents-defendants as such,
any challenge thereto at the hands of appellant-plaintiff, after a gap of
around 40 years and also after the death of his grand-father is merely an act
of afterthought and greed, that too, in the absence of any proof regarding rate
of rent or even the mode or manner of its payment by the appellant-plaintiff
to the respondents-defendants. In such, circumstances, finding no illegality
or perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below which
are based upon proper appreciation of pleadings and the evidence available
on record, the impugned judgments and decrees call for no interference,
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083508
RSA-5659-2019 (O&M) --5--
resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed.
9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
05.07.2024 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sonika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/ No
5 of 5
