RAM PARKASH Vs. GEETA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Sardhu, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration that he was in cultivating possession of the suit land as detailed in the plaint, as non-occupancy tenant and as a consequential relief, prayed for perpetual prohibitory injunction against the present appellant and the proforma respondents. In the alternative, the plaintiff asked for possession of the suit land.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff, as pleaded, has been that the suit land is entered in the ownership of the present appellant who was defendant No. 1 in the main suit in the revenue record. The suit land, according to plaintiff, earlier was entered in khata No. 10 khatauni No. 37, khasra No. 382 measuring 1 kanal 1 marla as per entries made in the jamabandi for the year 1965-66. The plaintiff claimed himself to be in cultivating possession of this land since the time of his ancestors as non-occupancy tenant on payment of rent. According to plaintiff, previously his father was cultivating the suit land and after his death, plaintiff being his successor-in-interest, has been cultivating the said land as non-occupancy tenant. The plaintiff claimed that he was an illiterate simple man whereas defendants were quite influential persons and defendants 2 to 5, who happened to be the proforma respondents in the present appeal, during the settlement, in connivance with settlement authorities, managed to get an entry of self cultivation in the column of possession. Plaintiff averred that the tenancy existing in favour of the plaintiff has been wrongly got deleted by these defendants during settlement to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Plaintiff's further case has been that neither he nor his father Shri Bhareptoo Ram ever relinquished the tenancy in favour of defendants 2 to 5 nor he or his father were ever ejected from the suit land in accordance with law. It has also been pleaded that these defendants 2 to 5, on the basis of wrong entries of self cultivating possession in the revenue record, transferred by way of sale the suit land in favour of defendant No. 1, the present appellant, about 2 months prior to the filing of the suit and thereafter this defendant No. 1 started extending threats to the plaintiff to vacate the possession. It was also averred by the plaintiff that defendant No. 1, on 20.9.1996, interfered with peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and threatened to forcibly remove the maize crop sown by the plaintiff in the suit land. According to plaintiff, he thereafter approached patwari halqua to get the revenue extract of the suit land and it was thereafter that the plaintiff came to know about the deletion of entry of tenancy existing in his favour. The sale of suit land, according to plaintiff, by defendants 2 to 5 in favour of defendant No. 1 is without any right, title or interest as after the enforcement of Tenancy Act, the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land.

(3.) All the defendants contested the suit. Defendant No. 1 filed a separate written statement. The averments made in the plaint were not admitted. It was pleaded that the plaintiff never cultivated the suit land as a tenant nor his father was inducted as a tenant by the vendors. It was pleaded that the suit land was in occupation of the vendors and after the sale in favour of defendant No. 1, he was in possession of the same as owner. The entries in the latest record of rights have been alleged to be correct.