High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Satish Chand & Anr v. Jai Narain & Anr - RSA-2026-2005  RD-P&H 4652 (24 July 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 2026 of 2005
Date of Decision: 21.7.2006
Satish Chand and another ...Appellants
Jai Narain and another ....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.
Present: Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate, for the appellants.
This order shall dispose of RSA Nos. 2026, 2027 and 2054 of 2005, arising out of a common judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.
The appellants have approached the Civil Court claiming that Kanshi Ram was tenant over the disputed land whereas it was the stand of the owner that possession of Kanshi Ram was that of a licensee. Both the Courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact that in fact, Kanshi Ram was a licensee and thus, such licence has come to an end after his death and thereafter the property was sold by Jai Narain, the original owner, to Brij Kishore.
The learned first Appellate Court has found that the Jamabandis for the year 1970-71 Exhibit D.10, 1975-76 Exhibit D.9 reflects possession of the appellants without payment of any rent. Subsequent Jamabandis for the year 1980-81, 1985-86, 1990-91, Exhibits D.8, D.7 and D.6 are also to the effect that possession of Kanshi Ram was Bila Lagan RSA No. 2026 of 2005 (2)
Bewajah Apasdari. The first Appellate Court found that these entries were never challenged by Kanshi Ram or his legal heirs. Still further, there is no evidence worth the name that Kanshi Ram or anybody on his behalf has paid any rent any time and thus, on the basis of such revenue record, it was found that possession of the appellants is that of a licensee alone.
Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to Jamabandi for the year 1952-53 to show that the possession of Kanshi Ram was on payment of Rs.350/- Chakota. The learned first Appellate Court has considered the said fact and noticed that Khasra Nos. 1788, 1792 and 1797 in the said Jamabandi reflected possession of Kanshi Ram on payment of Chakota, yet the said Khasra numbers in the subsequent Jamabandi for the year 1956-57 reflected Hazari etc. to be in possession and there is no entry regarding chakota. Some other Khasra numbers were reflected to be in possession of Kanshi Ram in the Jamabandi for the year 1956-57 but on 1/2 Batai. On the basis of such discussion, it was found that possession of Kanshi Ram is not proved to be that of a tenant. It was categorical case of the owner that no rent was ever paid. No evidence has been led by the appellant to the effect that any rent was ever paid to the owner of the land in possession of Kanshi Ram.
Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to Tulsi Vs.
Smt. Paro 1997(1) RCR (Rent) 281, to contend that since Kanshi Ram was in uninterrupted possession of the land in dispute and the revenue record also records his possession as tenant at will, therefore, the finding recorded that Kanshi Ram is a licensee is not sustainable. However, though the Jamabandis for the year 1952-53 and 1956-57 records Kanshi Ram in possession on payment of certain Batai but there is no evidence of actual RSA No. 2026 of 2005 (3)
payment of rent to the owner. The said entries are not proved to be relating to the land in dispute as well. Subsequent Jamabandis record possession of Kanshi Ram on account of arrangement between the parties. The arrangement between the parties cannot be considered on payment of any consideration. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the present case, as it has been found as a matter of fact that the possession of the appellants was that of a licensee.
Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may raise any substantial question of law in the present appeals.
Hence, all the appeals are dismissed.
28.7.2006 (HEMANT GUPTA)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.