- (1.) In this Regular Second Appeal against the decree of reversal passed by the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge (with enhanced appellate powers), Rohtak, on May 23, 1963, granting the plaintiff-respondents a decree for possession of the land in dispute on account of their having become owners of the said land which was in their occupancy tenancy, I will refer to the parties by their titles in the trial Court. The plaintiffs filed the suit for possession of 27 Kanals and 1 Marla of land claiming it to be part of 5 Bighas and 3 Biswas of land comprised in their occupancy tenancy on the ground that by operation of Section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act (8 of 1953) (hereinafter called the Occupancy Tenants Act), their occupancy tenancy rights had ripened into those of ownership. The decree of the trial Court, dated November 28, 1962, dismissing the plaintiff's suit was reversed by the first appellate Court and the suit decreed as already stated. In order to appreciate the relevant entries in the revenue records which have been produced in this case, it is necessary to take notice of the names of the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs. The pedigree-table of the plaintiff's family is, therefore set out below :- Rights of occupancy tenancy were claimed under Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act (16 of 1887) (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act). The said provision reads :- "Nothing in the foregoing Section of this Chapter shall preclude any person from establishing a right of occupancy on any grounds other than the grounds specified in those Sections." Section 9 states - "No tenant shall acquire a right of occupancy by mere, lapse of time." The land in dispute is a part of Khasra No. 1879, as it was allotted in consolidation proceedings in lieu of Khasra No. 1769 to which the original revenue record entries relate. The cultivating possession of the land in question is shown in the excerpt Exhibit P.W. 5/1 during different periods in the following manner :- (1) In 1879 in the possession of Ratia and Daula, sons of Hanwant Jat residents of the village as tenants-at-will in equal shares. The plaintiffs are Brahmins, and Ratia and Daula were admittedly not related to them in any manner. This entry does not, therefore, help the plaintiffs. Nothing beyond the land-revenue is described to be payable by Ratia and Daula as rent ; (ii) In 1889-90 in the possession of Gopal Bhanja, resident of the village, as tenant-at-will on payment of Rs. 3/3/6 as rent. It is not shown in the evidence on the record that Gopal Bhanja was in any manner related to the plaintiffs. This entry in the revenue record is also, therefore, of no avail to the plaintiffs ; (iii) In 1893-94 Budh Ram son of Hetu Brahmin, resident of the village, is shown to be in cultivating possession as a tenant-at-will on payment of Rs. 3/9/6 as rent. Hetu was the grandfather of the plaintiffs ; (iv) In 1897-98, 1901-1902, 1907-1908, 1909, 1910-11 and 1914-15, Maman and Budh Ram, sons of Hetu Brahmin, residents of the village, are shown to be in possession as tenants-at-will in equal shares ; (v) in 1918-19, Pyare Lal son of Budhu Brahmin, resident of the village, is shown to be in cultivating possession as a tenant-at-will, on payment of Rs. 2/12/3 as rent. Pyare Lal was the father of the present plaintiffs ; (vi) In 1926-27, 1930-31, 1935-36, 1938-39, 1943-44 and 1946-47, Phulia and Lalu, sons of Pyare Lal (the plaintiffs) are shown to be in possession as tenants-at-will in equal shares. In some of the entries, Pyare Lal (the father of the plaintiffs) is described as Gaur Brahmin.
(2.) In the entries relating to 1926-27, 1930-31, 1935-36 and 1938-39, the plaintiffs are shown in column 10 to be liable to pay specified amount of rent equal to land-revenue. In the entries for 1943-44 and 1946-47, it is stated that rent equal to land-revenue is payable without anything being payable to the owner on account of their being the priests (bawaja prohtai). In the Khewat Pamayash Exhibit P.1 in the column meant for showing, the name of the cultivator is entered "Phulia and Lalu sons of Pyare Lal (in equal shares), caste Brahmin as tenants-at-will." It is on this evidence that the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and the lower appellate Court reversed that decree.
(3.) The issues on which the trial of the case has proceeded are these :- "1. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit ? 2. Whether the plaintiffs were the occupancy tenants in the land in suit in 1952 ? 3. Whether the plaintiffs have become the owners of the land in suit ? 4. Whether Nahna Ram Singh, Dalip Singh, Ganpat, Chhaju and Suraj Bhan are necessary parties to the suit ? If so to what effect ? 5. Whether the plaintiffs have lost the alleged rights of occupancy tenants, if any, for the reasons of non-cultivation for over twelve years prior to 1952 ? 6. Whether the suit is barred under Section 50-A of the Punjab Tenancy Act ? 7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of the land in suit ? 8. Relief.";