Harjit Ram Andors Vs Balkar Singh

Th e present Regular Second A ppeal has been filed by the appellants/plain t iffs Harjit Ram and others, sons of Billu Ram, against the respondents/de f endants Balkar Singh and Maj h el Singh, challenging the judg m ent and decree date d 22.04.2000 passed by the lear n ed First Appellate Court, whereby the appeal was allowed and the judgment and d ecree dated 01.03.1997 passe d by the learned trial Court was set aside.

¶16

Brief Facts

¶17

Th e brief facts of the case are tha t the plaintiff Billu Ram filed a suit for grant of p e rmanent injunction restrainin g the defendants from interfe r ing forcibly in his p eaceful possession as tenant over the land measuring 38 kanal s 17 marlas, as detai l ed in the headnote of the plain t and as per Jamabandi for the y ear 1984–85, exce p t in due course of law. It was p leaded that the plaintiff had be e n a

¶18

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

RSA-2644-2000 (O&M) - 2 -

¶20

tenant on the s u it land prior to the year 1965 u n der the landowners, namely, Sh a nti Devi, Savitri Devi, Parsanni Devi, Parkash W a tti and Swaraj Devi, daughter s of Lahori Mal. T h e said landowners had once a t tempted to dispossess him, du e to which he had fi led a suit that was decreed ex parte in his favour. The griev a nce raised in the pr e sent suit was that the defenda n ts, claiming to have purchased the suit land from the said landowners, had sta r ted threatening him with forc i ble dispossession. T he plaintiff asserted that even i f the defendants had purchased the property, they had no right to eject him except in accordance with law. He maintained that he had been in continuous, peaceful, and legal possession of the suit land as t e nant since 1965, regularly p a ying his share of produce, and accordingly pra y ed for a decree of permanent i nj unction. 3. Th e defendants contested the sui t by filing their written statem e nt. They raised pr e liminary objections that the pl a intiff was not in possession of the suit land and t h at they had been in settled po s session since 1987. It was fur t her pleaded that th e y had been paying Chakota si n ce1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90 and the rate of Cha k ota was raised from the year 1990–91 and that the plaintiff h ad executed a cha k otanama in their favour for th e years 1989–90 and 1990–91, a lso issued receipts f or tubewell water charges. On m erits, they alleged that the plai n tiff had remained in possession only up to Rabi 1987, and thereafter inducted the defendants on p ayment of chakota. They also pleaded that they had purchas e d a portion of the s u it land by two registered sale d eeds, but their possession was not claimed on the basis of ownership, rather, the y were in possession as lessee s . It was contended t hat since they were already in p ossession, there was no questio n of any threat of fo r cible dispossession, and that t h e plaintiff had filed the suit me r ely to avoid evictio n on the ground of subletting.

¶21

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

RSA-2644-2000 (O&M) - 3 -

¶23

Re p lication was filed by the plai n tiff denying the allegations of the defendants, while reiterating his own stand.

¶24

O n the pleadings of the parties, t he learned trial Court framed the following issue s :

¶25

(1) whether the plaintiff is in poss e ssion over the land in dispute a s a te n ant? OPP

¶26

(2) relief.

¶27

Bo t h sides led evidence.

¶28

Findings of the trial Court

¶29

Th e learned trial Court, after co n sidering the record, observed t hat though an issu e regarding possession had bee n framed and it appeared from the pleadings that p ossession was claimed by th e defendants, yet the plaintiff h ad asserted that h e was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, whereas the defendants reli e d on a patanama dated 10.06.1 9 89 to support their possession. T he Court held that the execution of the patanama r emained doubtful. With respe c t to the correction o f Khasra Girdawari, the court noticed that the order of the N aib Tehsildar dated 04.05.1990 was passed when t he suit had already been instit u ted on 03.05.1990, which showed that the defen d ants had attempted to change the entries during t he pendency of the suit. Fro m the pleadings and conduct of the defendants, wh o even claimed ignorance of the plaintiff’s capacity despite alle g ing subletting, the t rial court concluded that the p l aintiff had been a tenant over the land and had b e en in possession on the date of f iling of the suit. It further held t hat he was disposs e ssed during the pendency of t h e suit, and relying on the princ i ple that the court c o uld mould the relief to meet th e ends of justice, it decreed the s uit,

¶30

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

RSA-2644-2000 (O&M) - 4 -

¶32

directing restor a tion of possession to the plai n tiff and restraining the defend a nts from interferin g in his possession.

¶33

It i s relevant to mention here that during pendency of the suit, B illu Ram had died a nd was represented by his leg a l representatives, namely, his sons Harjit Ram, Ma s t Ram, Kishan and Mohinder

¶34

Findings of the Lower Appellate Court

¶35

Aggrieved by the judgment and d e cree of the learned trial Court, the defendants pre f erred an appeal. The learned L ower Appellate Court allowed the appeal, holding that the suit being one for per m anent injunction, the only ques t ion was whether th e plaintiff was in possession on the date of institution of the sui t . It found that pro c eedings for correction of Khasra Girdawari had been initiate d in March 1990, m uch prior to the filing of the s uit, and on spot inspection it w as found that the p ossession was that of the defendants. The correction was mad e on 04.05.1990, a d ay after institution of the suit, b ut the Appellate Court held th a t it was merely a c onsequential step following s p ot inspection and enquiry already made earlier. I t also noticed that the plaintiff did not participate in the s aid proceedings de s pite notice. It was observed tha t the plaintiff had not produced any independent wi t ness from the village to suppor t his possession after 1987, whe r eas documentary e v idence patanama and Khasr a Girdawari entries supported the possession of t h e defendants. The Appellate C o urt held that the plaintiff had fa i led to prove his po s session as on the date of filing o f the suit, and further that if he h ad been disposses s ed during pendency, he ought t o have taken recourse to conte m pt proceedings, b u t he did not do so. It, therefore, reversed the judgment of the t rial court and dismi s sed the suit.

¶36

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

RSA-2644-2000 (O&M) - 5 -

¶38

Fe e ling aggrieved, the present Re g ular Second Appeal has been fi led by the appella n ts/legal representatives of plaintiff Billu Ram. Notice of the R SA was given to th e respondents, who have appear e d and contested the same.

¶39

Submission on behalf of the appellants/LRs of Plaintiff

¶40

Le a rned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Lo w er Appellate Cou r t erred in relying upon the p a tanama, which is inadmissibl e in evidence havin g been executed on plain pap e r. It was submitted that it st o od proved on reco r d that the plaintiff was inducte d as tenant on payment of batai and his only source of livelihood was agricultural i ncome, and there was no evid e nce that he or his s ons had surrendered possessio n in 1987. It was urged that m ere correction of e n tries in the Khasra Girdawari in favour of the defendants during the pendency of th e suit would not change the legal status of the plaintiff as tenant, and he could not b e dispossessed on the basis o f wrong entries made by reve n ue officials. The j u dgment of the learned Lower A ppellate Court was thus assaile d as illegal and unsustainable.

¶41

Submission on behalf of the respondents/defendants

¶42

O n the other hand, learned counse l for the respondents argued th a t in a suit for perm a nent injunction, the question of possession alone is material. It w as contended that the plaintiff himself admitted t h at he had been dispossessed. He further submitt e d that the defendants had bee n in possession since 1987 on the basis of chako t a as well as pattanama exec u ted in 1989. The proceedings for correction of K h asra Girdawari had been initiated prior to the filing of the suit and were decided o n spot inspection before 03.0 5 .1990, so the correction made on 04.05.1990 was only a formality. It was further contended that the plaintiff did not

¶43

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

RSA-2644-2000 (O&M) - 6 -

¶45

produce any cogent evidence to show his pos s ession on the date of filing of the suit, and theref o re, the appellate court rightly re v ersed the trial court’s findings. Findings of this Court

¶46

I h ave heard the submissions of l earned counsel for the parties a nd carefully exami n ed the record. It is not in disp u te that the suit as framed was o ne for permanent i n junction, and, therefore, the pl a intiff was required to establish his possession over the suit property as on the date o f the institution of the suit. 14. It a lso stands admitted on record t h at the plaintiff was in possessio n of the suit land till the year 1987. The real cont r oversy between the parties is w ith regard to possession thereafter, as the defend a nts have consistently pleaded t hat they came into p ossession of the suit land as les s ee on the basis of patanama. 15. Th e best evidence to determine p ossession over agricultural lan d is the revenue re c ord, particularly the entries i n the Khasra Girdawari. It is not disputed that p r ior to the filing of the prese n t suit, the defendants had alre a dy moved an appl i cation before the revenue auth o rities for correction of the Kh a sra Girdawari entri e s. Spot inspection was carried out by the revenue officials be f ore the filing of th e suit, and on the basis of suc h inspection, a report was prep a red recommending correction of the entries in fav o ur of the defendants. The suit w as instituted on 0 3.05.1990, whereas the ent r ies were formally corrected on 04.05.1990. He n ce, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be said that the ent r ies in the Khasra G irdawari were corrected duri n g the pendency of the suit. T he correction proc e edings had already been initiat e d prior thereto, and the inspec t ion had been condu c ted even earlier.

¶47

Th e corrected Khasra Girdawari e ntries thus show the possessio n of the defendants a nd not of the plaintiffs. Even if the admissibility of the patana m a is

¶48

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

RSA-2644-2000 (O&M) - 7 -

¶50

kept aside, the documentary evidence in the f orm of Khasra Girdawari ent r ies, supported by the spot inspection carried out by the revenue authorities prior to the institution of th e suit, clearly establishes possession of the defendants over the suit property.

¶51

It is a settled principle of law that entries in the Khasra Girdawari are the best eviden c e of possession unless rebutted by cogent and convincing mate r ial. No such eviden c e has been brought on record b y the plaintiffs. On the contrary, the plaintiffs have failed to lead any independent evidence from the village or a ny other source to p rove their cultivating possessio n over the land after 1987. 18. Ac c ordingly, this Court is of the c o nsidered opinion that the plain t iffs were not in p o ssession of the suit property on the date of filing of the s uit. Consequently, t he findings recorded by the l e arned Lower Appellate Court are affirmed, and t h e suit of the plaintiffs is liable t o be dismissed.

¶52

Conclusion

¶53

In t hese circumstances, the finding s of the lower First Appellate C o urt cannot be fault e d. The plaintiff, having failed t o prove the possession on the d ate of filing of th e suit, the dismissal of the s u it was, therefore, justified. T he judgment and d ecree dated 22.04.2000 of the l earned Lower Appellate Court are accordingly up h eld, though on slightly differe n t reasoning, and the present ap p eal stands dismisse d .

¶54

Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.

¶55

September 09, 2 025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE W h ether speaking/non-speaking : Speak i ng W h ether reportable : Yes/N o .

¶56

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Harjit Ram Andors v. Balkar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harjit Ram Andors v. Balkar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hardeep Inder Singh Vs Karnail Singh and Ors.

Tulsa Devi Vs Padam

Narinder Kaur Vs Pritpal Singh etc.

Kelo Devi and Others Vs Sandeep and Others

Capital Vehicles Sales Ltd. Vs M/S Bitureks Fire Solutions and Another

M/S Modular Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Bitureks Fire Solutions and Anr.