113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-5884-2019 (O&M) Reserved on : 16.09.2025 Date of Decision : 22.09.2025 Satbir ... Appellant(s) VERSUS F.M. Egan & Ors ... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. S.K. Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant. ALKA SARIN, J. 1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff No.3-appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2015 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2019 passed by the First Appellate Court. 2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff No.3- appellant herein alongwith two other plaintiffs (proforma respondent Nos.10 and 11) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs and proforma defendant-respondent Nos.6 to 9 were owners in possession of the land comprised in Khewat No.1096/996, Khatoni No.1321, khasra and killa Nos.46//10/2 (2-4), 11/1(1-16) kittas 2, total measuring 4 kanals 0 marla situated within the revenue estate of village Sikenderpur, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani and biswedar of Mauja Barsi, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani, as per the jamabandi for the year 2004-05. It was the case that they had become owners in possession as per Section 3 of the Punjab Yogesh Sharma 2025.09.22 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgment/order. Chandigarh RSA-5884-2019 (O&M) 2 Occupancy Tenant (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1952’) and that they were entitled to get their names incorporated in the revenue record as owners in possession in place of mujara gair maurisi. Further challenge was laid to the sale deed dated 01.04.2008 vide which the defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 5 sold the suit land to the defendant-respondent No.5(a) as being illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant-respondent Nos.6 to 9. Challenge was also laid to the sale deed dated 01.09.2008 vide which the defendant-respondent No.5(a) sold the land to the defendant- respondent Nos.5(b) to 5(d) as being illegal, null and void. Challenge was also laid to the sale deed dated 06.01.2012 vide which the defendant- respondent No.5(a) sold the suit land to the defendant-respondent No.5(e). Relief of permanent injunction was also sought. It was the case set up by the plaintiffs that they and proforma defendant Nos.6 to 9 and prior to them their forefather, cultivated the suit land and made the land cultivable and that they had been paying nominal rent of ₹1/- per kanal, hence, the sought a declaration under the Act of 1952. 3. On notice, defendant-respondent Nos.5(a) to 5(e) and 6 to 9 appeared and filed their written statements raising various preliminary objections. Defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 5 did not appear and were proceeded against ex parte. 4. The defendant-respondent No.5(a) pleaded that the plaintiffs and their forefathers never cultivated the suit land and that the defendant- respondent No.5(a), with the consent of the plaintiffs, had purchased the suit land on 01.04.2008 for due consideration. The defendant-respondent Yogesh Sharma 2025.09.22 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgment/order. Chandigarh RSA-5884-2019 (O&M) 3 Nos.5(b) to 5(d) also filed written statement raising various preliminary objections and pleaded that they had purchased the suit land from the defendant-respondent No.5(a) for valuable consideration. In the written statement, the defendant-respondent No.5(e) also took the plea that the suit land had been purchased for valuable consideration. The defendant- respondent Nos.6 to 9 filed an admitted written statement. 5. Replication was not filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the sale deed no. 1770 dated 06.01.2012 executed in favour of defendant no.5E is wrong, illegal and not binding on the rights of the proforma defendants no. 6 to 9 ? OPP 2A. Whether the sale deed no.391 dated 01.09.2008 in favour of defendants Nos.5A, 5B(ii), 5B(iii), 5B (iv), 5B (v), 5C and 5D is illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff ? OPP 3. Whether sale deed no.1 dated 01.04.2008 in favour of defendant no.5A is null and void and liable to be set aside as alleged ? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for ? OPP 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false and frivolous based on wrong facts and same is liable to be Yogesh Sharma 2025.09.22 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgment/order. Chandigarh RSA-5884-2019 (O&M) 4 dismissed ? OPD 6. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi and no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for nonjoinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD 9. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit ? OPD 10. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts from the Court ? OPD 11. Whether the plaintiff has not affixed the ad valorem court fee for the purpose of jurisdiction ? OPD 12. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit ? OPD 13. Relief. 6. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.03.2015 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by all the plaintiffs before the First Appellate Court which appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23.10.2019. The present regular second appeal has been preferred only by plaintiff No.3-appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff No.3-appellant would contend that both the Courts have erred in dismissing the suit. It is urged that the plaintiffs (the plaintiff No.3-appellant and proforma respondent Nos.10 and Yogesh Sharma 2025.09.22 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgment/order. Chandigarh RSA-5884-2019 (O&M) 5 11 herein) had complied with all the conditions, hence, they ought to have been declared as occupancy tenants. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that when the plaintiffs were inducted, the land was uncultivable and was given to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs with an agreement never to be ejected and, therefore, both the Courts have erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff No.3- appellant. 9. In the present case, though the case set up by the plaintiffs (the plaintiff No.3-appellant and proforma respondent Nos.10 and 11 herein) was that the suit was uncultivable and was given to their predecessor-in-interest with an agreement of non-ejectment, however, both the Courts have concurrently found that there was no evidence on the record to show that the suit land was uncultivable at any point of time. Further still, no evidence was produced on the record that there was ever any agreement of non-ejectment. Even the entries in the jamabandi revealed that the rate of rent varied. Further still, there was no record of any payment of rent as alleged. The First Appellate Court further, while referring to the jamabandis, had observed in the impugned judgment and decree that the plaintiff No.3- appellant had admitted that his predecessor-in-interest, namely, Harphool had two wives and four sons including his father - Ram Swarup. It was further admitted that the defendant-respondent No.5(a) – Smt. Manni Devi – was a wife of his grandfather – Harphool. However, after the death of Harphool, all his legal representatives were not recorded in possession as tenants. It has further been observed that without impleading all the legal Yogesh Sharma 2025.09.22 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgment/order. Chandigarh RSA-5884-2019 (O&M) 6 representatives of Harphool, the plaintiffs could not claim occupancy tenancy rights. The learned counsel for the plaintiff No.3-appellant has not been able to point to any cogent and reliable evidence in support of the plea that the plaintiffs had acquired the status of occupancy tenant. In the absence of any cogent evidence there is no reason for this Court to take a different view from the one taken by both the fact finding Courts. No other argument has been raised. 10. In view of the above, no fault can be found with the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present case which requires determination by this Court. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. 22.09.2025 Yogesh Sharma ( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO Yogesh Sharma 2025.09.22 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgment/order. Chandigarh