- (1.) The plaintiffs are in second appeal in a suit filed for declaration alleging therein that they are the tenants under the defendants over agricultural land falling in Khewat/Khatauni No. 40/45, Killa No. 30/11, 12/1, measuring 10 Kanals, situated in village Majheri, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, for the last more than 40 years at the rate of Bashran Malkan (equal to land revenue) as per jamabandi for the year 1975-76, from which they have never been evicted and there is an implied agreement between the predecessor-in- interest of the defendants that they will not dispossess them and despite the fact that value of the food-grains and goods of daily use have gene 40 times higher than the time when the tenancy was created, therefore, they have acquired occupancy rights in terms of the Punjab Occupancy Tenant (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 [for short "the Act"]. It was alleged that Ram Karan (defendant No.14) was a licensee of the plaintiffs, which (license) was cancelled in the year 1965-66 and thereafter, the plaintiffs are in possession under the defendants since the year 1968, but Ram Karan is bent upon to dispossess them from the land in dispute. It was also alleged that the plaintiffs had never mortgaged the tenancy rights to Ram Karan (defendant No.14) as such the entries in column No.9 of the jamabandis for the year 1954-55 and 1960-61, wherein it is mentioned as Bawajah Rahan Jabani, is wrong. Initially, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction claiming themselves to be in possession, but later on it was amended on the ground that the possession has been taken by Ram Karan during the pendency and as such decree of possession was also claimed. In the written statement filed by defendant No.14, it was alleged that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights which can only be granted by the Revenue Court. The plaintiffs are not the tenants under the defendants nor they are in possession of the land in dispute. It was denied that there was an implied agreement between die predecessor-in-interest of the defendants not to eject the plaintiffs.
(2.) The learned Trial Court, however, has recorded that defendant Nos. 1 and 7, namely Ram Chand and Mehar Chand had filed their written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs.
(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court: "1. Whether the plaintiffs are tenants under the defendants and are in possession of the land as alleged?OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs have acquired occupancy tenancy right in respect of lands in their possession and whether there is a custom to that effect ? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiffs have become full fledged owners under the provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiffs never mortgaged their tenancy rights to defendant No. 14? If so to what effect? OPP. 5. Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD 14. 6. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file this suit? OPD 14. 7. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 14. 8. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD 14. 9. Whether defendant No.14 is entitled for special costs? OPD 14. 10. Relief ";