Ram Nath And Others v. Bhagwan Singh And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Ram Nath (since deceased) thr LRs and Others . . . . Appellants Vs.

Bhagwan Singh and Others . . . . Respondents ****

Reserved on: 27.01.2026

Pronounced on: 03.02.2026 Pronounced fully/opera8ve part: Fully ****

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Jaivir Yadav, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Advocate for the appellants in RSA-1236-1991.

Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the appellants in RSA-1087-1999.

Mr. Mahabir Singh Tanwar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 6, 8, 9, 13, 17, 19 and 20 and also on behalf of Mr. Jagat Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.7, 10 to 12, 14 to 16 and 18.

Service of respondent Nos.21 to 23 dispensed with vide order dated 13.12.1991.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This judgment disposes of two Regular Second Appeals, which arise out of iden1cal facts and raise common ques1ons of law and fact. 2.

For convenience, the facts are taken from RSA No.1236 of 1991 1tled 'Ram Nath & Others v. Bhagwan Singh & Others', which arose out of Civil Suit No.475 of 1989 1tled 'Sheoraj Singh & Others v. Ram Nath & Others'; and Civil Appeal No.82/13 of 1989 1tled ' Sheoraj Singh & Others v. Ram Nath &

Others'.

3.

Background : Plain1ffs (who are respondents herein) claimed 1tle and possession to 04 Kanal 16 Marla of agricultural land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The suit land formerly formed part of an undivided joint holding of Shamlat Pa? Ram Singh in Village Jatoli, in which both the par1es were also the co-sharers. The plain1ffs assert that the joint holding was par11oned by muta1on No.3173 dated 25.09.1973, pursuant to which the suit land fell to their share. Defendants were alloBed other land out of the joint holding. As per plain1ffs, aCer par11on, defendants con1nued in possession of that land despite its allotment to the plain1ffs and refused to surrender possession on demand. The plain1ffs therefore sued for possession on the basis of 1tle / par11on allotment and consequen1al reliefs.

4.

Defendants (appellants herein) admiBed that the plain1ffs were recorded as owners in the post-par11on jamabandi but pleaded that they themselves had been tenants of the suit land for over 30 years (since 1956 according to DW-2 Mahipal). They relied heavily on con1nuous revenue entries in the jamabandi and khasra/girdawari showing them as tenants and the existence of a fixed chakota/lagan. In the alterna1ve, they pleaded ownership by adverse possession. Preliminary objec1on as to jurisdic1on of the Civil Court under Sec1on 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act was also raised. 5.

Findings of trial court: Issues material to the controversy were framed and evidence was recorded. The Trial Court accepted the defendants' case that they were tenants and that the revenue entries were correct and, on that basis, held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdic1on under Sec1on 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The suit was dismissed by judgment of Sub-Judge 2nd Class dated 05.06.1989.

6.1 First Appellate Court's findings : The learned First Appellate Court undertook a detailed re-apprecia1on of the pleadings, oral evidence and revenue record, including jamabandis and khasra girdawaris for the period from

1961 to 1988. It no1ced that the consistent stand of the defendants was that the alleged tenancy in their favour had been created by the plain1ffs alone and not by the Shamlat Pa?, and DW-2 Mahipal specifically asserted that such tenancy commenced in the year 1956.

6.2 However, the pre-par11on revenue record depicted the defendants as tenants under Shamlat Pa Ram Singh and not under the plain1ffs. The postpar11on jamabandis, on the other hand, recorded the plain1ffs as owners and the defendants as tenants, which was found to be a conven1onal change occasioned by par11on. The Appellate Court further found that there was no reliable evidence of payment of rent either to the plain1ffs or to all co-sharers of the Pa?, nor was any material produced to establish a bilateral agreement evidencing the rela1onship of landlord and tenant between the plain1ffs and the defendants.

6.3 The Appellate Court further no1ced that the seBled prac1ce, reflected in precedent as well as in revenue administra1on, is that where, at the 1me of par11on, land alloBed to one co-sharer is found to be in possession of another, the person remaining in possession is oCen recorded as a tenant. Such entries are frequently conven1onal in nature and do not necessarily create a legal tenancy. Relying upon this principle, the Appellate Court held that the presump1on of correctness aBached to the jamabandi entries stood rebuBed on the admiBed evidence.

6.4 Applying seBled law, the Appellate Court held that a valid tenancy affec1ng joint land, prior to par11on, can be created only by all co-sharers ac1ng collec1vely and that one or some of the co-sharers cannot create a tenancy in respect of the en1re joint holding so as to bind others. On facts, it was found that the defendants neither pleaded nor proved that all co-sharers had created tenancy in their favour.

6.4 The Appellate Court placed reliance upon the judgment of the Federal Court in Hasil Singh v. Dhani Ram, 1941 LLT 31 (FC), wherein it was held

that where, at the 1me of par11on, land alloBed to one co-sharer is in possession of another, the alloBee is recorded as owner and the co-sharer con1nuing in possession is recorded as tenant in will, with or without a note in the red column. It was observed that in such circumstances, no presump1on of tenancy arises from the revenue record, as such entries are merely conven1onal and do not establish a jural rela1onship of landlord and tenant. 6.5 The Appellate Court further no1ced that it was an undisputed fact that earlier Shamlat Pa Ram Singh was the owner of the suit land as well as other joint land and that the joint holding stood par11oned vide muta1on No.3174 dated 25.09.1973 (Ex.P5). As per the said muta1on, the suit land was alloBed to the plain1ffs, while other land was alloBed to the defendants.

Consequently, the plain1ffs became exclusive owners of the suit land and were legally en1tled to seek possession thereof on the basis of 1tle. This conclusion was found to be fully supported by the law laid down in Hasil Singh v. Dhani Ram (supra) and Partap Singh v. Harnam Singh, 1961 Supplement LLT 57. 6.6 The Appellate Court also took into considera1on the judgment dated 10.04.1986 (Ex.P2) passed by the learned Addi1onal District Judge, Gurugram, in Civil Appeal No.122 of 1985 1tled "Dalip and others v. Ram Kumar and another", wherein, in similar circumstances, the suit had been decreed, and the said decree was upheld by this Court while dismissing the second appeal vide order dated 28.05.1986 (Ex.P7).

The said decision was held to lend further support to the plain1ffs' en1tlement to possession once the land stood alloBed to them in par11on.

6.7 It was further observed that every co-sharer has a right in every parcel of the joint land and, therefore, tenancy in respect of the whole or any part of joint land cannot be created by one or some of the co-sharers, but only by all the co-sharers ac1ng together. While a co-sharer may create tenancy in respect of his own share, he cannot create tenancy concerning the en1re joint holding so as to bind other co-sharers.

6.8 In the present case, the defendants' own version was that the alleged tenancy in their favour was created at a 1me when the suit land was s1ll joint property of the Pa? and that such tenancy was created by the plain1ffs alone. The Appellate Court rightly held that the plain1ffs, not being exclusive owners prior to par11on, could not have created a valid tenancy in respect of the en1re suit land. At best, they could have created tenancy in respect of their undivided share, which was not the defendants' case. 6.9 The Appellate Court was conscious of the seBled posi1on that in certain circumstances a co-sharer may become a tenant of joint land; however, such tenancy must necessarily be created by all co-sharers. Reliance in this regard was placed upon M/s India Automobiles v.

Life Insurance Corpora2on of India, 1978 (1) MLJ 178, affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1990 (2) RLR 168, and H.M. Podar v. S.N. Podar, 1979 (1) RLR 219. 6.10 Applying the ra1o of the aforesaid judgments, the Appellate Court concluded that no valid tenancy had come into existence in favour of the defendants. It was held that prior to par11on the defendants were in possession as co-sharers and such possession was on behalf of all co-sharers, and aCer par11on, once the suit land stood alloBed to the plain1ffs, they were en1tled to recover possession thereof.

6.11 On a cumula1ve considera1on of the evidence and seBled legal principles, the Appellate Court categorically held that the defendants were not tenants over the suit land; that the revenue entries showing alleged tenancy were wrong, illegal and void; and that the plain1ffs were en1tled to possession of the suit land on the basis of 1tle. The findings of the Trial Court were accordingly reversed.

6.12 It was further held that since no rela1onship of landlord and tenant existed between the par1es, the jurisdic1on of the Civil Court was not barred under Sec1on 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. Consequently, vide judgment dated 17.05.1991, the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed.

7.

Conten2ons before this Court : Assailing the judgment of reversal, learned counsel for the appellants-defendants has confined his challenge to a solitary conten1on, namely, that con1nuous revenue entries since the year 1961-62 depict the appellants to be in possession of the suit land in the capacity of tenants on payment of a fixed lagan and, therefore, the learned First Appellate Court commiBed a legal error in discarding such entries and reversing the findings of the Trial Court.

8.

Considera2on by this Court : This Court is unable to accept the afore said submission.

9.

The learned First Appellate Court has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed re-apprecia1on of the en1re evidence, including pleadings, oral tes1mony and the revenue record spanning more than two decades. The Appellate Court has recorded clear and reasoned findings that the presump1on aBached to the jamabandi entries stood rebuBed on the defendants' own pleadings and admissions, and also on account of the inherent inconsistency between the revenue record and the defendants' version regarding crea1on of tenancy.

10.

It has been clearly found that while the defendants asserted that tenancy in their favour was created by the plain1ffs alone, the pre-par11on revenue entries showed the alleged tenancy under the Shamlat Pa?, thereby demolishing the defendants' own case. Further, the absence of any reliable evidence of payment of rent or existence of a bilateral agreement establishing a landlord-tenant rela1onship has been duly no1ced. The Appellate Court has also correctly applied the seBled legal posi1on that entries in the revenue record, par1cularly those made at the 1me of par11on, are oCen conven1onal in nature and do not, by themselves, create or prove a legal tenancy. 11.

The finding of the Appellate Court that a valid tenancy in respect of joint land could have been created only by all co-sharers ac1ng collec1vely, and that such tenancy was neither pleaded nor proved, is fully in consonance with

seBled law. The conclusion that aCer par11on the plain1ffs, as alloBees of the suit land, were en1tled to recover possession thereof on the basis of 1tle is also founded on sound legal principles.

12.

The conten1on raised before this Court essen1ally seeks reapprecia1on of evidence and subs1tu1on of the findings of the First Appellate Court with those of the Trial Court. Such an exercise is impermissible in the jurisdic1on under Sec1on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, par1cularly when the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court are neither perverse nor based on misreading of evidence, nor shown to be contrary to any seBled principle of law.

13.

This Court finds that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity warran1ng any interference. No substan1al ques1on of law arises for considera1on in the present appeals. 14.

Consequently, the appeals are held to be devoid of any merit and are dismissed. Par1es are leC to bear their own costs. 15.

Pending applica1on(s), if any stands disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 03.02.2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes Whether reportable?

Yes Uploaded on.: 04.02.2026