RSA No.1693 of 2019 (O&M) S. No.110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No.1693 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.04.2025 Narbir Singh and others .....Appellants Vs. Balkar Singh (deceased) through his LRs and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Rohit Singh and Mr. Satwant Singh, Advocates for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral) Suit for paron regarding property in dispute filed by the plainffs – Narbir Singh and others (appellants herein) was dismissed by the trial Court of learned Addional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide judgment dated 07.05.2014. Against the said judgment, both the pares went in appeal. Both the appeals were dismissed vide common judgment dated 20.10.2018 by the First Appellate Court of learned Addional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. Against these concurrent findings, plainffs have approached this Court by way of the Regular Second Appeal. 2. The facts, in brief, emerging on perusal of the paper book are that the suit property measuring 58 kanals 16 marlas as detailed in the plaint was an evacuee property, which was allo9ed to one Joginder Nath. Said Joginder Nath donated the property to defendant No.2 – i.e. Bharat Sewak Samaj, Ambala City (respondent No.2 herein). Shri Diwan Singh son of Rija Singh was recorded to be tenant in possession on the suit property. Diwan Singh expired, leaving behind two sons, namely, Balkar Singh and Mukhar Singh. Plainffs are the successors- in-interest of Mukhar Singh, whereas defendant No.1 is Balkar Singh and a;er his death, his legal representaves were brought on record before the First Appellate Court. Page No.1 out of 4 pages RENU 2025.04.03 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.1693 of 2019 (O&M) 3. According to plainffs, a;er the death of Diwan Singh, tenancy rights were inherited by both of his sons, Balkar Singh and Mukhar Singh, who remained in joint possession. Both of them were in Army and a;er their rerement, they managed the suit property jointly. Mukhar Singh expired in 1991 and so, plainffs being his successors became joint tenants over the suit land along with defendant No.1. This arrangement remained ll 2004, when family disputes started regarding management and culvaon of the family property. The property owned by the pares was mutually paroned. However, defendant No.1 refused for paron of the suit land on the ground that it was tenancy property and plainffs did not have the right to seek its paron. With these averments, plainffs prayed for paron of the suit property, claiming separate possession of ½ share. 4. Defendant No.1 – Balkar Singh opposed the suit denying the plainffs to be in joint possession of the suit property. According to him, a;er the death of Diwan Singh, suit land was given by the owner – defendant No.2 to him only and he is culvang the suit land and that the plainffs never culvated the same. Defendant No.1 further disputed the jurisdicon of the Civil Court to entertain suit for paron, submiAng that the plainffs had already filed an applicaon for paron before Assistant Collector and, as such, the suit was not maintainable. 5. Defendant No.2 in its separate wri9en statement denied plainffs to be joint tenants in possession along with defendant No.1 and supporng the stand of defendant No.1, by submiAng that only said defendant No.1 was inducted as a tenant afresh a;er the death of Diwan Singh. Said defendant No.2 also prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. Issues were framed and Evidence produced by the pares was taken on record. The trial Court held the plainffs and defendant No.1 to be joint tenants in possession of the suit land. However, suit was held to be not maintainable for paron of the tenancy rights in the suit property. Suit was accordingly dismissed vide judgment dated 07.05.2014. Page No.2 out of 4 pages RENU 2025.04.03 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.1693 of 2019 (O&M) 7. Both the pares went in appeal. Plainffs assailed the findings, whereby relief of paron was declined; whereas defendant No.1 assailed the finding of the trial Court, whereby plainffs were held to be joint tenants along with him (defendant No.1) in possession of the suit property. However, both these appeals have been dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 20.10.2018. 8. Against the concurrent findings of the Courts below to the effect that plainffs were joint tenants along with defendant No.1 in the suit property, no further appeal has been preferred by the defendants. 9. It is only the plainffs, who have approached this Court by way of the present Regular Second Appeal, claiming that there is no bar to paron of the tenancy rights in the suit property. 10. There is no merit in the contenon. 11. Secon 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 reads as under:- “111. Applica;on for par;;on. - Any joint owner of land, or any joint tenant of a tenancy in which a right of occupancy subsists, may apply to a Revenue- officer for paron of his share in the land or tenancy ; as the case may be, if - (a) at the date of the applicaon the share is recorded under Chapter IV as belonging to him ; or (b) his right to the share has been established by a decree which is sll subsisng at that date ; or (c) a wri9en acknowledgement of that right has been executed by all persons interested in the admission or denial thereof.” 12. It is evident from the afore-said provision that it is either any of the joint owners of the land; or any joint tenant of a tenancy, in which right of occupancy subsists, who may apply to the Revenue officer for paron of the share in the land or tenancy, as the case may be. Meaning thereby, apart from the joint owner, only that joint tenant can seek paron of his share in the tenancy, who has right of occupancy. Page No.3 out of 4 pages RENU 2025.04.03 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.1693 of 2019 (O&M) 13. In the present case, plainffs have not pleaded that they or their predecessor Mukhar Singh were occupancy tenants in the suit property. As such, the Courts below have rightly held that suit for paron of the tenancy rights was not maintainable, parcularly when the owner – defendant No.2 had not consented for the paron and rather, had denied the tenancy of plainffs. Although stand of defendant No.2 – owner to the effect that plainffs are not joint tenants along with defendant No.1, has been rejected by both the Courts below but at the same me, the said stand of defendant No.2 clearly reflects that said owner has not consented for the paron of the tenancy rights. 14. In view of the afore-said discussion, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the judgments passed by the Courts below. There is no ground calling for any interference. 15. Dismissed. April 02, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No.4 out of 4 pages RENU 2025.04.03 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh