IN THE HIG I. Shyam Lal Hem Raj & Anr. II. Shyam Lal Hem Raj & Ors CORAM: HON’BL Argued by:- Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. DEEPAK GUPTA, The representatives, findings of the C been dismissed, dispossessed from 2. In o their status befo the DMS, has bee 3. The was a co-sharer revenue estate o 04.03.1992, he s No.1 Hemraj for PAGE N: 1 OF 4 PAG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAR RSA No. 2900 of 2002(O Versus . COCP No. 3975 of 2018 Versus . Reserved on: 16.01.202 Pronounced on: 22.01. N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate and Mr. G.S. Bidhan, Advocate for the ap Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate and Mr. Dolly Shiwani, Advocate for res TA, J. The plaintiff of the case, now ves, is before this Court in the prese he Courts below, whereby his suit sed, though it has concurrently from the suit land except in due co In order to avoid confusion, partie before the trial Court.The record o been perused. The undisputed factual position is arer in the total land measuring 3 te of village Safidon, District Jind. he sold his 26/688 share, measurin for a consideration of ₹30,000/-. O AGES HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 02(O&M) …Appellant …Respondents 018 …Petitioner …Respondents .2026 .01.2026 PTA and e appellant. r respondents No.1 and 2. w represented through his lega resent appeal against the concurren uit seeking pre-emption of sale ha tly been held that he cannot be e course of law. arties are being referred to as pe rd of the trial Court, as available on n is that defendant No.2 Jagdish La g 34 kanal 8 marla situated in th Jind. Vide sale deed No.1348 dated uring 1 kanal 9 marla, to defendan . On the same day i.e. 04.03.1992 legal rrent e has t be s per le on h Lal the ated dant 992, JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.22 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document defendant No.2 a defendant No.3. 4. The on the suit land nature of house tenant, he posse sale effected by d defendants to ac 5. Duri vendor, was give 6. Defe objections and d defendant No.3 dated 04.03.1992 The consideratio 7. In re 8. Upo recorded a findi further held him suit land had bee Safidon, vide no stood extinguish No.3 was held to claim. According dated 11.10.199 dispossessed exc 9. Aggr No.1 and 3 prefe dismissal of his PAGE N: 2 OF 4 PAG o.2 also executed a lease deed bear o.3. The plaintiff instituted the suit asse nd for more than 25 years; that he use, shops and had planted a m ossessed a preferential and superio by defendant No.2 in favour of defe o acknowledge his claim, the suit wa During the pendency of the pro given up by the plaintiff. Defendants No.1 and 3 conteste nd disputing the plaintiff’s claim o o.3 was in possession of the suit l 1992 and that the plaintiff had no e ation of sale was also disputed. In rejoinder, the plaintiff reiterated Upon framing of issues and apprecia finding that the plaintiff was in p him to be a tenant. However, it wa been brought within the municipa e notification Ex.D3, and consequ uished. The lease deed dated 04.0 ld to be a fictitious document exe dingly, the suit seeking pre-emptio .1999, though it was clarified th except in due course of law. Aggrieved by the finding that the pl referred an appeal. Significantly, th his suit for pre-emption. Thus, t AGES bearing Wasika No.1346 in favour o asserting that he had been a tenan t he had raised constructions in the a mango garden; and that being erior right of pre-emption over th defendant No.1. Upon refusal of th it was filed. proceedings, defendant No.2, the ested the suit, raising preliminar im of tenancy. It was pleaded tha uit land pursuant to the lease deed no enforceable right of pre-emption ted his stand. reciation of evidence, the trial Cour in possession of the suit land and t was simultaneously found that the cipal limits of Municipal Committee equently the right of pre-emption 04.03.1992 in favour of defendan executed to frustrate the plaintiff’ ption was dismissed vide judgmen d that the plaintiff could not b e plaintiff was a tenant, defendant y, the plaintiff did not challenge the s, the only issue before the Firs ur of nant n the ing a r the f the , the inary that deed tion. ourt and t the ittee, ption dant tiff’s ment t be ants e the First JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.22 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Appellate Court w tenant over the s 10.1 The the revenue rec jamabandi for t nowhere recorde subsequently, th with the entry conspicuously bl tenancy, no asse rate of rent, and rent receipt or Pa 10.2. The legal relationship placed on settle possession witho found that the introducing a ple neither pleaded being beyond consonance with into on a plea no 10.3 The relied upon by t defendants, as t filed by the pre dismissed for wa possession. Cons trial Court on te except in accord dated 20.10.2000 PAGE N: 3 OF 4 PAG urt was whether the plaintiff had su he suit land or not. The First Appellate Court undertoo record and evidence. It traced or the year 1956-57 onwards and orded as a tenant. The land was s the plaintiff’s possession was ref try “bila lagan bawaja tameer m ly blank throughout. There was no assertion as to the execution of any and no evidence of payment of ren or Panchayat record was produced. The First Appellate Court rightly no ship and cannot be inferred merel ettled precedents holding that a ithout rent, does not confer the the plaintiff sought to improve plea of tenancy under the Panchay ded nor supported by any docume nd pleadings, was correctly exc with the settled principle that no am a not pleaded. The earlier judgment dated 07.10.1 by the plaintiff, was also rightly he as they were not parties thereto. predecessors of the defendants a r want of evidence, did not adjudic onsequently, the First Appellate C n tenancy, while maintaining the p cordance with law, and partly allo 2000. AGES d successfully proved his status as rtook a detailed re-appreciation o ced the entries from the earlies and found that the plaintiff wa as shown as rafae aam initially and s reflected as gair maurusi, coupled r makaan”. The rent column wa s no pleading as to the source o any lease deed, no disclosure of the rent to any person or authority. No ed. noticed that tenancy is a bilatera erely from possession. Reliance wa t a mere entry of gair maurusi o the status of a tenant. It was also ove his case during evidence b chayat at a nominal rent, which wa umentary evidence. Such evidence excluded from consideration in o amount of evidence can be looked .10.1982 in Civil Suit No.81 of 1981 ly held to be not binding upon the eto. Moreover, the subsequent sui ts against the plaintiff, which wa judicate the nature of the plaintiff’ te Court reversed the finding of th he protection against dispossession allowed the appeal vide judgmen as a n of rliest was and pled was ce of f the y. No teral was si or also e by was ence, n in oked 981, the t suit was tiff’s f the ssion ment JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.22 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11. Befo submissions only of tenancy. It w evidence and th tenancy. 12. Havi no merit in the ap 13. The meticulously exa findings, which a absence of any e creation of tena does not establi Appellate Court. advance his cas determine the na 14. In a substantial quest Court are based law. No substant 15. Acco though the plaint to be a tenant th law. 16. As re arguments and is 22.01.2026 Jiten Whe Whe Uplo PAGE N: 4 OF 4 PAG Before this Court, learned counsel only to assailing the finding of the F It was argued that the trial Court d that the earlier judgment of 1 Having considered the submissions he appeal. The First Appellate Court, being examined the revenue record an ich are neither perverse nor contra ny entry regarding rent, the lack o tenancy, and the settled legal posi tablish tenancy, fully justify the c urt. The earlier judgments relied case, as they neither bind the e nature of possession as that of a t In a second appeal, interferenc uestions of law arise. The findings sed on correct appreciation of evi tantial question of law is made out w Accordingly, the appeal is dismiss laintiff is in established possession o t thereon, and that he can be dispo As regards COCP No.3975 of 2018, t nd is accordingly disposed of as not hether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No hether reportable : Yes/No Uploaded on : January 22 , 2026 AGES nsel for the appellant confined hi he First Appellate Court on the issu ourt had correctly appreciated the of 1982 established the plaintiff’ ions and the record, this Court find ing the final Court of facts, ha d and oral evidence and returned ntrary to the record. The consisten ck of pleadings and proof regardin position that possession simplicite e conclusion reached by the Firs lied upon by the plaintiff do no the defendants nor conclusivel f a tenant. rence is permissible only when ings recorded by the First Appellat f evidence and settled principles o out warranting interference. missed, affirming the finding tha ion of the suit land, he is not proved ispossessed only in accordance with 18, the same was not pressed durin not pressed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE d his issue the tiff’s finds has rned stent rding iciter First not ively hen llate es of that oved with uring JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.22 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document