RSA-9-1994 & RSA-400-1994 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-9-1994 & RSA-400-1994 Reserved on 04.09.2025 Date of decision: 08.09.2025 I. RSA-9-1994 Gharsi Ram and others ...Appellants Versus Prayag Chand and others ...Respondents II. RSA-400-1994 Gharsi Ram and others ...Appellants Versus Prayag Chand and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the appellant(s). Respondent Nos.1 and 2 ex parte vide order dated 17.11.2018. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 ex parte before the trial Court. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. These two appeals have been ﬁled by the defendants of the case against the concurrent ﬁndings of the Courts below, while deciding two civil suits between the same par0es and pertaining to the same suit property. 2. Dispute pertains to ½ share in the suit land detailed in head note the plaint, which was mortgaged by one Tulsha son of Kesha resident Page N: 1 of total 7 Pages Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.08 17:30 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-9-1994 & RSA-400-1994 of village Ghanghala in favour of the plain0ﬀs Laxmi Narain and others (respondents herein) for an amount of ₹1500/-, regarding which muta0on No.283 dated 25.09.1954 (Ex.P-16) was sanc0oned. Admi>edly, said Tulsha expired in 1962 without leaving any legal heir. 3. It was pleaded by the plain0ﬀs that their mortgagor Tulsha used to be maurusi (occupancy tenant) on suit land since prior to 1952 and that he had perfected his 0tle by virtue of the provisions of The Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesng of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952. According to plain0ﬀs, on the death of Tulsha, his estate was escheated to the State Government, who became the owner thereof, but defendants No.1 to 26 (appellants herein) claiming to be erstwhile landlords got muta0on No.305 dated 13.06.1963 sanc0oned in their favour regarding cancella0on of the maurusi rights of Tulsha and started claiming to be owners of the suit land to the extent of share of Tulsha. Said muta0on was sanc0oned aAer the death of Tulsha and is challenged by the plain0ﬀs to be wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding on their rights. According to the plain0ﬀs, as Tulsha had perfected his 0tle by virtue of 1952 Act, so defendants were leA with no right or 0tle in suit land to get the impugned muta0on sanc0oned in their favour. As defendant had started interfering in the possession of the plain0ﬀs, so decree for permanent injunc0on was sought by ﬁling one of the suits. 4. In the second suit, plain0ﬀs assailed the validity of the order dated 02.07.1986 passed by Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Bhiwani, redeeming the suit land in favour of the defendants on the applica0on moved by them, contending that defendants-appellants had no right to move the applica0on for redemp0on, as they were no longer the owners of the suit land. 5. Both the suits were contested by the defendants-appellants on Page N: 2 of total 7 Pages Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.08 17:30 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-9-1994 & RSA-400-1994 the ground that Tulsha being the occupancy tenant had limited rights only in the suit land and that aAer his death in 1962 and leaving behind no legal heir, suit land reverted to the defendants being land owners and so muta0on was rightly sanc0oned in their favour. They disputed the locus of the plain0ﬀs to challenge the muta0on in this regard. They also defended the order dated 02.07.1986 of Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Bhiwani to be legal and valid and thus, prayed for dismissal of both the suits. 6. Both the suits were consolidated. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the par0es was taken on record. 7. Trial Court found that as per entries of jamabandi for the year 1953-54 (Ex.P9), Tulsha was recorded to be owner of ½ share in the suit land and as per the column No.12 of the jamabandi, said Tulsha being an occupancy tenant had become owner on the basis of le>er No.176/R/52/890 dated 25.03.1952. It was concluded that since Tulsha had already perfected his 0tle in the suit land, therefore, the said land could not revert to the defendants being the erstwhile landlords, aAer the death of Tulsha as issueless. Accordingly, impugned muta0on No.305 dated 13.06.1963 in favour of the defendants along with subsequent muta0on and also the impugned order dated 02.07.1986 of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhiwani, redeeming the suit land were held to be null and void. Both the suits were accordingly decreed vide judgment dated 16.01.1992. 8. Two separate appeals ﬁled by the defendants were heard together by the First Appellate Court and vide common judgment dated 01.09.1993, the same were dismissed, thus aﬃrming the ﬁndings of the trial Court. 9. Assailing the aforesaid concurrent ﬁndings, two fold submissions have been made by learned counsel for the appellants- defendants. It is urged that no doubt, Tulsha was an occupancy tenant prior Page N: 3 of total 7 Pages Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.08 17:30 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-9-1994 & RSA-400-1994 to coming into force of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Ves0ng of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 but a declara0on by the court was necessary to perfect his 0tle under the said Act. Learned counsel refers to Shiv Charan Vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others 2004 (4) RCR (Civil) 543. The second conten0on made by learned counsel is that as Tulsha died without leaving any legal heirs, therefore, his rights were ex0nguished and the suit land reverted to the owners in view of Sec0on 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. 10. AAer hearing learned counsel for the appellants-defendants, this Court does not ﬁnd any merit in any of his conten0ons. 11. The Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Ves0ng of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 came into force on 15.06.1952. By virtue of Sec0on 3 of the said Act, all rights, 0tle and interest of the landlord in the land held under him by an occupancy tenant were ex0nguished and such rights, 0tle and interest were deemed to vest in the occupancy tenant free from all encumbrances. 12. In the present case, it has not been disputed by learned counsel for the appellants that Tulsha was recorded as an occupancy tenant in the suit land prior to coming into force of 1952 Act. As such, by virtue of 1952 Act, all rights, 0tle and interest in suit land belonging to the erstwhile landlords i.e. defendants stood vested in Tulsha, who was earlier recorded to be occupancy tenant. It was speciﬁcally so men0oned in jamabandi for the year 1953-54 (Ex.P9), recording Tulsha to be owner of the suit land, with the remarks that he had become owner on the basis of le>er No.176/R/52/890 dated 25.03.1952. 13. The conten0on of learned counsel for the appellants to the eﬀect that a declara0on by the Civil Court was necessary to hold that Tulsha had become owner on account of The Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesng of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952, has no force. Shiv Charan Vs. Financial Page N: 4 of total 7 Pages Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.08 17:30 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-9-1994 & RSA-400-1994 Commissioner, Haryana and others (supra) relied by counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, the issue before Full Bench of this Court was regarding the jurisdic0on, as to whether it is a Civil Court or the Revenue Court, which has to determine the dispute as envisaged under Sec0on 77 (3)(d) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and this Court held as under:- “8. We are, however, of the opinion that this very issue had been raised before and repelled by the Division Bench in Amin Lal's case. The Bench noced that expression "Occupancy tenant" included two types of occupancy tenants, namely, (i) those who were recorded as such in the revenue record immediately before the commencement of the Act and (ii) those, whose rights as occupancy tenants could be established by other evidence. The Court observed that a/er the coming into force of the Vesng Act, what was required was in fact a declaraon of tle based on the fact as to whether a person claiming a right of occupancy had in fact become the owner, though for arriving at this conclusion, it would o/en be necessary for the Court to examine the condions prescribed by the Vesng Act, and to determine as to whether they had been fulﬁlled. The Court further observed that a/er the coming into force of the Vesng Act, there was a simultaneous exnguishment of the rights of Occupancy and conversion of the same into ownership and as such a declaraon of tle could be given only by the Civil Court. It was accordingly concluded as under:- "A Civil Court has jurisdicon to try all suits of a civil nature unless its jurisdicon with regard to a parcular type of a suit is expressly or implied barred. A suit in which the right to property is to be decided is beyond doubt a suit within the cognizance of a Civil Court. A provision of law which takes away such a jurisdicon has to be strictly construed. Secon 77(3)(d) of the Tenancy Act takes out of the jurisdicon of a Civil Court only that suit which is instuted to Page N: 5 of total 7 Pages Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.08 17:30 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-9-1994 & RSA-400-1994 establish a claim to a right of occupancy and not where tle to property is to be decided on the determinaon of occupancy rights which determinaon was only to substanate the plea of ownership. A/er the coming into force of the Vesng of Proprietary Rights Act, occupancy rights had ceased to exist and all of them were automacally converted into statutory ownership." 14. It is thus clear from the above said conclusion drawn by Full Bench of this Court that it is a Civil Court, which had the jurisdic0on in the ma>er so as to declare that rights of occupancy tenant ceased to exist and had been converted into ownership. 15. This Court is of the considered opinion that the ques0on of exercising any such jurisdic0on will arise, only when any such dispute is raised. However, in present case, Tulsha had already been recorded to be owner of the suit land in jamabandi for the year 1953-54 (Ex.P9), having acquired the said rights on the basis of le>er No.176/R/52/890 dated 25.03.1952, as appeared in the evidence. It is conceded by learned counsel for the appellants-defendants that the said order dated 25.03.1952, as referred in the jamabandi for the year 1953-54 was never challenged by the defendants-appellants, either during life 0me of Tulsha, who expired in 1962 or thereaAer. Once it is found that Tulsha had already been recorded to be the owner of the suit land in the revenue record as per the jamabandi for the year 1953-54, there was no ques0on of geIng a declara0on by him from the Court to the eﬀect that he had become the owner by virtue of the 1952 Act. 16. Tulsha had died without leaving any legal heirs in 1962. He was already recorded as an owner well before his death. As such, the defendants-appellants, the erstwhile landlords were leA with no right, 0tle or interest whatsoever in the suit land so as to seek redemp0on of the same. Page N: 6 of total 7 Pages Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.08 17:30 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-9-1994 & RSA-400-1994 17. In view of the above discussion, it is found that the trial Court rightly held that muta0on No.305 dated 13.06.1963 in favour of the defendants, rever0ng the land to erstwhile owners, was wrongly sanc0oned and as such, said muta0on was rightly set aside. It has also been rightly held by the trial Court that order dated 02.07.1986 passed by Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Bhiwani, redeeming the land on the applica0on moved by the defendants could not be upheld, as defendants being no longer the owners, had no right to claim redemp0on. The Appellate Court on re-apprecia0on of evidence, has rightly upheld the judgment of the trial Court. 18. Thus, the Courts below did not commit any error in decreeing the two suits. There is no ground to interfere in the well-reasoned concurrent ﬁndings of facts recorded by the Courts below in the absence of any illegality or perversity. As such, both the appeals are held to be devoid on merits and are hereby dismissed. 08.09.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Page N: 7 of total 7 Pages Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.08 17:30 I agree to specified portions of this document

GHARSI RAM v. PARYAG CHAND AND OTHERS

Judgment text