Chandu vs Gopi
2025 Latest Caselaw 5773 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Chandu vs Gopi on 1 December, 2025

           RSA-1945-1995
                    1995 (O&M)                                                                    -1-


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH
                                                  -.-
                                                      RSA
                                                      RSA-1945-1995 (O&M)
                                                      Reserved on:
                                                               on:-07.11.2025
                                                      Pronounced on:- 01.12.2025
                                                      Uploaded on:
                                                               on:-02.12.2025
           Whether only operative part of the judgment is
           Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced:          operative part/full judgment

           Chandu
               du (deceased) through LRs                                         ....Appellant

                                                     VERSUS

           Gopi (deceased) through LRs
                                   LR                                     ....Respondent

           CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE
                               JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

           Present:            Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Sr. Advocate assisted by
                               Ms. Nikita Goel and Mr. Daanish Mahajan, Advocates
                               For LRs of the appellant.

                               Mr. Aman Arora, Advocate and
                               Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.1(i)

                  Respondents No.1(ii) and 1 (iii) proceeded against ex
                                                                     ex-parte
                  vide order dated 23.09.2025
                                            -.-
           MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant-

appellant

plaintiff against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby tthe he learned

Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.1993, dismissed the suit of the

plaintiff for possession and the learned Lower Appellate Court, vide judgment and

decree dated 07.04.1995, upheld the said dismissal.

Brief Facts

2. The case set up by the plaintiff is that he had become owner of the

agricultural land comprised in Khewat No.160 situated in the revenue estate of

Village Andhop, Tehsil Hathin, District Faridabad by acquiring occupancy rights

RSA-1945-1995 1995 (O&M) -2-

therein, and that the defendants were in permissive posse possession ssion of the suit land as

licencee ee under him. It was pleaded that after acquiring the occupancy rights, the

plaintiff terminated the licence of the defendants and required them to deliver

possession of the suit land, but the defendants fail failed ed to do so, leading to the filing

of the suit.

3. Defendant No.1 was proceeded ex parte parte. Defendant No.2,, in his

written statement, broadly denied the plaintiff's assertions and contended that the

suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had no locus sstandi tandi to file it, and further

pleaded that the plaintiff was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the

present suit. The defendant asserted that he had been in possession of the suit land

for more than thirty years as a mortgagee and had become oowner of the land, in the

alternative, he set up a plea of ownership by adverse possession.

4. The plaintiff, in his replication, reiterated his case and denied the

pleas raised by the defendant.

5. On the basis of the rival pleadings following issues were framed

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit land? OPP

2. Whether the defendants are in possession of the suit land as

licencees ees under the plaintiff, and if so, to what effect? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct

from filing the present suit? OPD

5. Relief.

6. Both sides led oral and documentary evidence in support of their

respective stands, which included revenue records, jamabandis of various years,

khasra girdawaris, and an order of the Assistant Collector Grade I.

RSA-1945-1995 1995 (O&M) -3-

Findings of the Trial Court

7. The Trial Court, upon appreciating the oral and documentary

evidence, concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish his ownership over the suit

land as the entries in the revenue record consistently showed the defendants and

their predecessors as Gair Morusi Doen (mortgagees with possession) and tenants,

whereas the plaintiff had not produced any credible evidence rebutting the

presumption of truth attached to these entries. T The he documents relied upon by the

plaintiff, including the order Ex.P3 Ex. and decree Ex.

Ex.P4 P4 regarding alleged acquisition

of occupancy rights, were held inconsistent with long long-standing standing revenue entries and

thus insufficient to prove ownership, especially when the plaintiff had admittedly

mortgaged his tenancy rights prior to such orders orders. Further, rther, the defendants'

possession for more than 30 years without redemption of the mortgage was

accepted, making the defendants owners by prescription, and consequently the plea

that they were licencees licen under nder the plaintiff was rejected. S Since the defendantss were

found to be in lawful possession as sub-tenants/mortgagees sub tenants/mortgagees and not as licen licencees, ees,

and the plaintiff having neither redeemed the mortgage nor challenged the revenue

entries, the suit was held not maintainable and devoid of merit, leading to

dismissal.

Findings of the Lower Appellate Court

8. The Lower Appellate Court, upon a thorough re re-appraisal appraisal of the entire

evidence, upheld the dismissal of the suit by holding that the revenue record

spanning several decades consistently depicted the defendants and their

predecessors as Gair Morusi Doen (mortgagees rtgagees with possession) under an oral

mortgage created by the plaintiff himself, and that the plaintiff never redeemed this

mortgage within the prescribed period, thereby allowing the defendants to mature

RSA-1945-1995 1995 (O&M) -4-

their possession into ownership by prescription. The he Court found the plaintiff's

reliance on an ex parte decree and orders regarding alleged acquisition of

occupancy rights to be wholly inconsistent with long long-standing standing revenue entries and

incapable of extinguishing the defendants' subsisting rights as mor mortgagees tgagees and sub-

sub

tenants. It further held that the plaintiff's plea that the defendants were merely

licencees ees was misconceived, ill-founded, ill founded, and contrary to overwhelming

documentary evidence, as no tenancy or permissive possession under the plaintiff

was ever er established. Consequently, Consequently, the appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court's

reasoning, found no merit in any of the challenges raised, and dismissed the appeal

while endorsing the conclusion that the plaintiff had no subsisting title or right to

recover possession ossession of the suit land.

9. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below below,, the

plaintiff has filed the present regular second appeal, which is contested by the

respondent No.1(i). Respondents No.1(ii) and 1(iii) were proceeded against ex

parte vide order dated 23.09.2025.

23.09.2025

Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant

10. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Courts ourts below

failed to appreciate that the plaintiff had acquired occupancy rights under Section 8

of the Punjab Tenancy Act, Act 1887 and thereby became owner of the suit land, and

that this position stood recognised by the order of the Assistant Collector and the

decree relied upon by the plaintiff. It was urged that once such occupancy rights

were declared, the earlier earlier revenue entries could not prevail and the defendants

could not claim to have acquired ownership by adverse possession or prescription.

The appellant further submitted that the possession of defendants was permissive,

as licencees under the plaintiff, and after termination of this licence the plaintiff

RSA-1945-1995 1995 (O&M) -5-

was entitled to recover possession. Reliance was placed by the appellant upon the

Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Kishan and Others v. Sheo Ram and a

Others 2008(1) R.C.R (Civil) 334, 334, asserting that usufructuary mortgage without a

fixed period of redemption does not become irredeemable even with the passage of

decades, that a mortgagee never becomes owner by prescription in such a situation,

and that the right of redemption subsists regardless of how long the mortgagee

remains in possession. On this basis, the appellant contended that the plea of the

defendants that their long possession matured into ownership, was legally

unsustainable.

Submissions off learned counsel for respondent No.1(i)

11. On the other hand, the respondent No.1(i) opposed the appeal by

submitting that the revenue entries for several decades consistently recorded the

defendants as Gair Morusi Doen or mortgagees with possession, and that the

plaintiff had never redeemed the alleged oral mortgage nor produced any evidence

rebutting the presumption of correctness attached to the jamabandi entries. It was

argued for the respondents that the plaintiff's claim of acquiring occupancy ri rights ghts

was inconsistent with the revenue record, because the entries in favour of the

defendants extended over more than thirty years and the plaintiff had neither

challenged those entries nor adduced any cogent evidence to displace them. It was

further contended ended that the decree obtained by the plaintiff could not extinguish the

rights of persons who were recorded in possession under the revenue law, and that

the plaintiff could not treat them as licencees when the record itself showed them

as mortgagees/sub tenants mortgagees/sub-tenants in continuous, uninterrupted possession. The

respondents, therefore supported the concurrent findings and asserted that the

plaintiff never established ownership or entitlement to possession.

            RSA-1945-1995
                    1995 (O&M)                                                              -6-

           Findings

12. Having considered the record, the impugne impugned d judgments and decrees of

the Courts ourts below and the submissions of counsel, this Court finds no infirmity in

the concurrent conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish ownership or the

right to recover possession. The jamabandi entries for multip multiple le years record the

defendants and their predecessors as Gair M Morusi mortgagees/sub-tenants tenants in

possession, and these entries carry a presumption of truth which has not been

rebutted by the plaintiff. No documentary or oral evidence has been produced to

show that any mortgage was ever redeemed, or that the defendants were at any

stagee licencees under the plaintiff. On the contrary, the revenue entries

demonstrate uninterrupted possession of the defendants for more than thirty years,

which the plaintiff has has neither explained nor challenged. The decree relied upon by

the plaintiff does not override or negate these entries, particularly as the defendants

were not shown to have been parties to the proceedings culminating in that decree.

The findings of the trial trial court, as affirmed by the lower appellate court, are thus

based on proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be termed perverse or

contrary to law.

13. The judgment in Ram Kishan's 's case (supra) (supra),, relied upon by the

appellant, is distinguishable on the the facts of the present case. That judgment deals

with the concept that usufructuary mortgage without a fixed period of redemption

does not become irredeemable by mere passage of time and that the mortgagee

does not become owner by prescription. However, th thee foundation of that judgment

is the admitted existence of a valid usufructuary mortgage and the question of

limitation for redemption. In the present matter, the essential controversy is not the

enforceability of the right of redemption under a subsisting mortgage, but whether

RSA-1945-1995 1995 (O&M) -7-

the plaintiff has proved ownership at all, and whether the revenue entries showing

the defendants as Gair Morusi mortgagees with possession for more than thirty

years stand displaced by any legal or factual material. The plaintiff ha hass not proved

the existence or terms of any mortgage so as to bring the case within the ratio of

the Full Bench. More importantly, the plaintiff has not redeemed any mortgage,

has not challenged the longstanding revenue entries, and has relied instead on

orders ders which, on their face, do not unsettle the factual position consistently

reflected in the jamabandis. Therefore, the principles laid down in Ram Kishan's Kishan

case (supra) do not assist the appellant and cannot be applied to alter the factual

and evidentiaryy conclusions reached by the courts below.

14. Consequently, this Court concurs concurs with the view taken by the C Courts ourts

below that the plaintiff has not discharged the burden of proving title or entitlement

to possession, and the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.

15. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

           December 01, 2025                                              (MANDEEP PANNU)
           tripti                                                             JUDGE
                               Whether speaking/non-speaking
                                       speaking/non speaking : Speaking
                               Whether reportable            : Yes/No.