Dismissed¶¶35

(O&M) Shyam Lal v. Hem Raj and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jan 2026RSA/2900/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Shyam Lal v Hem Raj, RSA No. 2900 of 2002(O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Deepak Gupta J., decided 22.01.2026. Pre-emption suit dismissal affirmed; tenancy rejected — gair maurusi entry, blank rent column, no rent receipts or Panchayat record; possession simpliciter does not establish tenancy; evidence beyond pleadings excluded; 1982 judgment not binding on strangers; no substantial question of law for second appeal; plaintiff protected from dispossession except in accordance with law; sale deed No.1348 dated 04.03.1992, 26/688 share, 1 kanal 9 marla, ₹30,000/-; companion COCP No. 3975 of 2018 disposed of as not pressed.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal was dismissed and COCP No.3975 of 2018 was disposed of as not pressed. ¶¶35

(O&M) Shyam Lal Vs Hem Raj and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal was dismissed and COCP No.3975 of 2018 was disposed of as not pressed.

¶¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff successfully proved his status as a tenant over the suit land — the only issue carried before the First Appellate Court. +1 more

¶¶24

Court's answer

Possession simpliciter does not establish tenancy; the consistent absence of rent entries, together with the lack of pleadings and proof regarding creation of tenancy, fully justified the First Appellate Court's conclusion rejecting the plaintiff's claim of tenancy.

¶¶33

Ratio / Principle

The earlier judgments relied upon by the plaintiff do not advance his case, as they neither bind the defendants nor conclusively determine the nature of possession as that of a tenant.

¶¶33

Key takeaways

Interference in second appeal is permissible only when substantial questions of law arise; the First Appellate Court's findings are neither perverse nor contrary to the record, and no substantial question of law was made out warranting interference.ratio¶¶34
The plaintiff is in established possession of the suit land but is not proved to be a tenant thereon, and he can be dispossessed only in accordance with law; the second appeal stands dismissed affirming these findings.ratio¶¶35
COCP No.3975 of 2018 was not pressed during arguments and was accordingly disposed of as not pressed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (Deepak Gupta, J.) — RSA No. 2900 of 2002(O&M) dismissed; COCP No. 3975 of 2018 disposed of as not pressed. Plaintiff sought pre-emption of sale deed No.1348 dated 04.03.1992 by which defendant No.2 Jagdish Lal sold his 26/688 share (1 kanal 9 marla) to defendant No.1 Hemraj for ₹30,000/-, claiming tenancy of over 25 years. Trial Court dismissed the pre-emption suit vide judgment dated 11.10.1999 (pre-emption extinguished on the land falling within Municipal Committee, Safidon, per notification Ex.D3) but held the plaintiff a tenant in possession, protected from dispossession except in due course of law. On the defendants' appeal — the plaintiff having not challenged the dismissal — the First Appellate Court, tracing jamabandi entries from 1956-57 onwards, found the plaintiff never recorded as tenant, the rent column blank, possession shown as gair maurusi ('bila lagan bawaja tameer makaan'), no rent receipts or Panchayat records produced, and excluded the belated plea of Panchayat tenancy as beyond pleadings; it reversed the tenancy finding while maintaining dispossession protection, partly allowing the appeal vide judgment dated 20.10.2000. Held: tenancy is a bilateral legal relationship and possession simpliciter does not establish tenancy; the earlier judgment of 1982 did not bind the defendants, who were not parties to it; no substantial question of law arose warranting second-appeal interference; the plaintiff remains in established possession but is not a proved tenant and can be dispossessed only in accordance with law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

I. RSA No. 2900 of 2002(O&M)

¶3

Shyam Lal … Appellant Versus Hem Raj & Anr. …Respondents II. COCP No. 3975 of 2018 Shyam Lal … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Hem Raj & Ors . …Respondents

¶6

Reserved on: 16.01.2026 Pronounced on: 22.01.2026

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶8

Argued by:- M r . Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate a n d M r . G.S. Bidhan, Advocate for the a ppellant. M r . Rajiv Kataria, Advocate and M r . Dolly Shiwani, Advocate for r e spondents No.1 and 2.

¶9

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

¶10

Th e plaintiff of the case, now represented through his le g al representative s , is before this Court in the pre s ent appeal against the concurr e nt findings of the Courts below, whereby his sui t seeking pre-emption of sale h as been dismisse d , though it has concurrentl y been held that he cannot be dispossessed fr o m the suit land except in due course of law.

¶11

In order to avoid confusion, par t ies are being referred to as p er their status be f ore the trial Court.The record of the trial Court, as available o n the DMS, has b e en perused.

¶12

Th e undisputed factual position i s that defendant No.2 Jagdish L al was a co-shar e r in the total land measuring 34 kanal 8 marla situated in the revenue estate of village Safidon, District Jin d . Vide sale deed No.1348 dated 04.03.1992, he sold his 26/688 share, measur i ng 1 kanal 9 marla, to defend a nt No.1 Hemraj f o r a consideration of ₹30,000/-. On the same day i.e. 04.03.19 9 2,

¶13

JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.22 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

PAGE N: 1 OF 4 PA G ES

¶15

defendant No. 2 also executed a lease deed be a ring Wasika No.1346 in favour of defendant No. 3 .

¶16

Th e plaintiff instituted the suit as s erting that he had been a ten a nt on the suit lan d for more than 25 years; that h e had raised constructions in the nature of hou s e, shops and had planted a m ango garden; and that bein g a tenant, he pos s essed a preferential and supe r ior right of pre-emption over the sale effected b y defendant No.2 in favour of d e fendant No.1. Upon refusal of the defendants to a cknowledge his claim, the suit w as filed.

¶17

During the pendency of the p r oceedings, defendant No.2, the vendor, was gi v en up by the plaintiff.

¶18

Defendants No.1 and 3 contes t ed the suit, raising prelimin a ry objections and disputing the plaintiff’s claim of tenancy. It was pleaded t h at defendant No. 3 was in possession of the suit land pursuant to the lease deed dated 04.03.19 9 2 and that the plaintiff had no enforceable right of pre-empti o n. The consideration of sale was also disputed.

¶19

In r ejoinder, the plaintiff reiterate d his stand.

¶20

U p on framing of issues and appre c iation of evidence, the trial Co u rt recorded a fin d ing that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land and further held hi m to be a tenant. However, it w as simultaneously found that the suit land had b e en brought within the munici p al limits of Municipal Committ e e, Safidon, vide n otification Ex.D3, and consequently the right of pre-emption stood extingui s hed. The lease deed dated 0 4 .03.1992 in favour of defend a nt No.3 was held to be a fictitious document executed to frustrate the plainti f f’s claim. Accordi n gly, the suit seeking pre-empt i on was dismissed vide judgm e nt dated 11.10.1 9 99, though it was clarified that the plaintiff could not be dispossessed e x cept in due course of law.

¶21

Ag g rieved by the finding that the plaintiff was a tenant, defenda n ts No.1 and 3 pre f erred an appeal. Significantly, t he plaintiff did not challenge the dismissal of his suit for pre-emption. Thus, the only issue before the First

¶22

JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.22 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

PAGE N: 2 OF 4 PA G ES

¶24

Appellate Cour t was whether the plaintiff had s uccessfully proved his status a s a tenant over th e suit land or not.

¶25

10.1 Th e First Appellate Court undert o ok a detailed re-appreciation of the revenue record and evidence. It trace d the entries from the earli e st jamabandi for the year 1956-57 onwards and found that the plaintiff w as nowhere recor d ed as a tenant. The land was shown as rafae aam initially and subsequently, t he plaintiff’s possession was r e flected as gair maurusi , coupled with the entr y “bila lagan bawaja tameer makaan” . The rent column w as conspicuously b lank throughout. There was no pleading as to the source of tenancy, no as s ertion as to the execution of a n y lease deed, no disclosure of the rate of rent, and no evidence of payment of r e nt to any person or authority. N o rent receipt or P anchayat record was produce d .

¶26

10.2. Th e First Appellate Court rightly n oticed that tenancy is a bilateral legal relationship and cannot be inferred mer e ly from possession. Reliance w as placed on settled precedents holding that a mere entry of gair maurusi or possession wit h out rent, does not confer th e status of a tenant. It was a l so found that the plaintiff sought to improv e his case during evidence by introducing a plea of tenancy under the Panch a yat at a nominal rent, which w as neither pleade d nor supported by any docu m entary evidence. Such eviden c e, being beyond pleadings, was correctly excluded from consideration in consonance wi t h the settled principle that no a mount of evidence can be looked into on a plea not pleaded.

¶27

10.3 Th e earlier judgment dated 07.1 0 .1982 in Civil Suit No.81 of 19 8 1, relied upon by the plaintiff, was also rightly held to be not binding upon the defendants, as they were not parties theret o . Moreover, the subsequent s u it filed by the p r edecessors of the defendants against the plaintiff, which w as dismissed for w ant of evidence, did not adju d icate the nature of the plainti f f’s possession. Co n sequently, the First Appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court on t enancy, while maintaining the protection against dispossessi o n except in acco r dance with law, and partly allowed the appeal vide judgm e nt dated 20.10.20 0 0.

¶28

JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.22 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

PAGE N: 3 OF 4 PA G ES

¶30

Be f ore this Court, learned couns e l for the appellant confined h is submissions only to assailing the finding of the First Appellate Court on the issue of tenancy. It was argued that the trial Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the earlier judgment of 1982 established the plainti f f’s tenancy.

¶31

Having considered the submissio n s and the record, this Court fi n ds no merit in the appeal.

¶32

Th e First Appellate Court, bein g the final Court of facts, h as meticulously e x amined the revenue record a nd oral evidence and returned findings, which are neither perverse nor cont r ary to the record. The consist e nt absence of an y entry regarding rent, the lack of pleadings and proof regarding creation of te n ancy, and the settled legal p o sition that possession simplici t er does not esta b lish tenancy, fully justify the conclusion reached by the First Appellate Cou r t. The earlier judgments reli e d upon by the plaintiff do n ot advance his case, as they neither bind t h e defendants nor conclusiv e ly determine the n ature of possession as that of a tenant.

¶33

In a second appeal, interference is permissible only when substantial qu e stions of law arise. The findin g s recorded by the First Appell a te Court are based on correct appreciation of e vidence and settled principles of law. No substa n tial question of law is made ou t warranting interference.

¶34

Ac c ordingly, the appeal is dism i ssed, affirming the finding t h at though the plaintiff is in established possessio n of the suit land, he is not proved to be a tenant t hereon, and that he can be dis p ossessed only in accordance w i th law.

¶35

As regards COCP No.3975 of 2018 , the same was not pressed during arguments and is accordingly disposed of as not pressed.

¶36

(DEEPAK GUPTA) 22.01.2026 JUDGE Jiten Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Uploaded on : January 22 , 2026

¶37

JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.22 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

PAGE N: 4 OF 4 PA G ES

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 20.10.2000 of the First Appellate Court partly allowing the appeal of defendants No.1 and 3: reversal of the trial Court's finding that the plaintiff was a tenant, while maintaining protection against dispossession except in accordance with law.¶¶27
First Appellate Court · 20.10.2000
Prior proceeding
Defendant No.2 Jagdish Lal, a co-sharer in total land measuring 34 kanal 8 marla in village Safidon, District Jind, sold his 26/688 share (1 kanal 9 marla) to defendant No.1 Hemraj for Rs.30,000/- vide sale deed No.1348 dated 04.03.1992.¶¶12
Prior proceeding
On the same day (04.03.1992), defendant No.2 executed a lease deed (Wasika No.1346) in favour of defendant No.3.¶¶15
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff instituted the suit claiming tenancy of over 25 years, constructions (house, shops) and a mango garden on the suit land, and a preferential right of pre-emption over the sale by defendant No.2 to defendant No.1.¶¶16
Prior proceeding
Defendants No.1 and 3 contested the suit, disputing the claim of tenancy and the consideration, and pleading that defendant No.3 was in possession under the lease deed dated 04.03.1992 and that the plaintiff had no enforceable right of pre-emption.¶¶18
Prior proceeding
Trial Court held the plaintiff to be in possession and a tenant, but found pre-emption extinguished because the land had been brought within Municipal Committee, Safidon (notification Ex.D3), and held the lease deed in favour of defendant No.3 fictitious; the pre-emption suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 11.10.1999, with a clarification that the plaintiff could not be dispossessed except in due course of law.¶¶20
Prior proceeding
Defendants No.1 and 3 appealed against the finding that the plaintiff was a tenant; the plaintiff did not challenge the dismissal of his pre-emption suit, leaving tenancy as the only issue before the First Appellate Court.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
First Appellate Court re-appreciated the revenue record: tracing jamabandi entries from 1956-57 onwards, the plaintiff was nowhere recorded as a tenant; possession reflected as gair maurusi with entry 'bila lagan bawaja tameer makaan'; rent column blank; no rent receipt or Panchayat record produced.¶¶25
Prior proceeding
First Appellate Court excluded, as beyond the pleadings, the plaintiff's newly introduced plea of tenancy under the Panchayat at a nominal rent, applying the principle that no amount of evidence can be looked into on a plea not pleaded.¶¶26

(O&M) Shyam Lal v. Hem Raj and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Shyam Lal v. Hem Raj and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Vs Dharam Paul and Ors.

Jaswinder Kaur and Anr. Vs Jhalman Singh and Anr.

Paras Ram (Deceased) Thro Lr and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Birkha Ram Vs Leiah Biradari

Shyam Lal Vs Hem Raj and Ors.

Harpal Singh Vs Naresh Kumar & Ors.