Dismissed

Faiman Begum v. Islam

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Mar 2018RSA/3393/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal challenges a decree passed in a suit for property. The High Court upheld the lower courts' finding that the respondent was a tenant who acquired occupancy rights and vested title by virtue of long possession and payment of land revenue. The appeal against this finding was dismissed with no substantial question of law arising.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the impugned judgment and decree were upheld.

Faiman Begum Vs Islam — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

R.S.A No. 3393 of 2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

R.S.A No. 3393 of 2015 Date of decision : 14.03.2018

Smt. Faiman Begum

......Appellant

versus

Islam

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present: Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

¶13

RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)

¶14

This regular second appeal is directed against the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the Court below whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent (herein after to be referred as 'the respondents'), has been decreed.

¶15

A bare perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the suit of respondent has rightly been decreed, as admittedly in the revenue record, the respondent was recorded as BASHRE MALKAN BA WAJAI DERIN KASHT, revenue record i.e jamabandies for the year 1968-69 to 2003-04 (Ex P1 to P8). The respondent was in possession of the suit land on payment of land revenue and cesses and land is recorded BHUD (cultivable) and not Banjar (Kadeem or Jadid). The respondent is in possession of the suit property for the more than 40 years as tenant on payment of land revenue and cesses and he has fulfilled the requirement of law to become owner of the same. If the land remained uncultivated due to the reasons of shortage of water, rain etc for some time, it does not mean that the land is always Banjar. Presumption of truth is attached

¶16

with the later jamabandies which shows that the land in dispute is not Banjar Gaurav Arora 2018.05.29 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

R.S.A No. 3393 of 2015

¶18

¶19

since long and it is being cultivated. As per the revenue record coupled with the evidence produced by the respondent, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent are coming in possession over the suit land as tenant on payment of land revenue and cesses which shall means that the land was given for the purpose of agricultural. Even if uncultivated land is given to a tenant for the purpose of agricultural and a tenant can make it cultivable.

¶20

Reference has rightly been made to a case law titled as Bishambar vs. State of Haryana 1989 PLR 733 in which it was held that the jamabandi show possession of disputed land for the last more than 30 years without payument of any rent to the land owner, the entry in the coloumn of rent being BASHRE MALKAN BA WAJAI KASHT DERINA and only land revenue and cesses. Presumption of truth is to attach to the jamabandies, which were not rebutted.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the fact that the land was not banjar as held by both the Courts below. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that mere long possession on the suit property will not give right to the tenant as per Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952.

¶22

This argument is also liable to be rejected in view of judgment of this Court in a case of Mauj Khan and others vs. Deen Mohd and anr, 2016(2) PLR 574 wherein it has been held that once the plaintiffs established their occupancy right in the suit land in terms of Section 5 of 1887 Act. Consequently, they also acquired the right of vesting of such land in them under Section 3 of 1952 Act as well.

¶23

Accordingly, the judgments and decree passed by both the Courts Gaurav Arora 2018.05.29 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and below do not require any interference by this Court. integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

R.S.A No. 3393 of 2015

¶25

¶26

No substantial question of law arises for adjudication by this Court. The appeal is dismissed.

¶27

March 14, 2018 (RITU BAHRI) G Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶28

Gaurav Arora 2018.05.29 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Faiman Begum v. Islam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faiman Begum v. Islam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashi Arora and Ors. Vs Govind and Ors.

Karamjit Kaur and Ors. Vs Ajaib Singh and Ors.

Kewal Krishan Ahluwalia Thru Lrs. Rajinder Ahluwalia and Ors. Vs Shavinder Singh

Balwinder Kaur & Ors. Vs Sukhdev Singh & Ors.

Gopi Krishan and Ors. Vs Shobha Devi and Ors.

Anju Yadav Vs Mahavir Kaushik