Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
1.
SANSAR DEVI AND ORS.
MAHABIR DASS
2.
SANSAR DEVI AND ORS.
MAHABIR DASS
3.
SANSAR DEVI
MAHABIR DASS
4.
MAHANT MAHABIR DASS
STATE OF HARYANA
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. Present : Mr. Amit Jain, S
Ms. Nikita Sharma, Advocate
in
for the petitioner in COCP
in CRM
Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate (through V.C.) with
Mr. Nissim Aggarwal, Advocate and
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: 01.05.2026
Date of Decision:
SANSAR DEVI AND ORS. Versus MAHABIR DASS
SANSAR DEVI AND ORS. Versus MAHABIR DASS
SANSAR DEVI @ SANSAR BALA AND ORS. Versus MAHABIR DASS
MAHABIR DASS AND ORS. Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Nikita Sharma, Advocate for the appellant(s) in RSA-2115-2006 and RSA-973-2010 for the petitioner in COCP-885-2010 in CRM-M-32840-2010. Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate (through V.C.) with Mr. Nissim Aggarwal, Advocate and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.05.2026 Date of Decision: 29.05.2026
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M)
…. Appellants
…. Respondent
RSA-973-2010 (O&M)
…. Appellants
…. Respondent
COCP-885-2010 AND ORS. …. Petitioners
…. Respondent
CRM-M-32841-2010
…. Petitioners
…. Respondents RAMESH KUMARI
r Advocate with
for the appellant(s)
2010 and
2010 and for respondent No.2 Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate (through V.C.) with Mr. Nissim Aggarwal, Advocate and
JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Mr. A.V.S. Parmar, Advocate
for the respondent(s) in
Mr. Nipun Vashist, Advocate
for petitioner No.1 in CRM
for respondent in COCP
Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate
for respondent No.2 in
RAMESH KUMARI
1. This order shall dispose of the aforementioned regular second appeals bearing No. RSA-2115 COCP-885-2010 and CRM
2. RSA-2115-2006 ha original plaintiff 22.04.2006 whereby, appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against dismissal of civil suit No.1080 of dismissed. 3. Civil suit No.1080/ of cultivation in respect of the land bearing Rect. No.6 killa No.23 (4 No.8 killa Nos. 21 (4 area 27 kanal 7 marla in the name of the defendant is illegal in the eyes of law and tenant, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent (hereinafter referred to as
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M Mr. A.V.S. Parmar, Advocate for the respondent(s) in RSA-2115 Mr. Nipun Vashist, Advocate for petitioner No.1 in CRM-M-32841 for respondent in COCP-885-2010. Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2 in CRM-M-32841
**** RAMESH KUMARI, J. (oral) This order shall dispose of the aforementioned regular second appeals bearing 2115-2006 and RSA-973-2010 as well as petitions bearing No. 2010 and CRM-M-32841-2010.
2006 had been filed by the appellants/successors original plaintiff-Rumal Kaur against the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.04.2006 whereby, appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against dismissal l suit No.1080 of 30.10.1992 instituted on 16.08.1985 Civil suit No.1080/1985 was filed for declaration to the effect of cultivation in respect of the land bearing Rect. No.6 killa No.23 (4 No.8 killa Nos. 21 (4-8), 22 (5-18), Rect. No.9 killa Nos. area 27 kanal 7 marla, situated in village Kharkhari Bhiwan, in the name of the defendant is illegal, invalid, in the eyes of law and that the plaintiff was still in continuous possession tenant, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the (hereinafter referred to as defendant
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), M-32841-2010 -2- 2115-2006 and RSA-973-2010. 32841-2010 and
2010. 32841-2010. This order shall dispose of the aforementioned regular second appeals bearing as well as petitions bearing No. been filed by the appellants/successors-in-interest of against the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.04.2006 whereby, appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against dismissal instituted on 16.08.1985, had been was filed for declaration to the effect that the change of cultivation in respect of the land bearing Rect. No.6 killa No.23 (4-4), Rect. 18), Rect. No.9 killa Nos. 3(4-17), 9(8-8), total , situated in village Kharkhari Bhiwan, since Kharif 1982 , without jurisdiction and nullity was still in continuous possession as a tenant, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant) from interfering into the This order shall dispose of the aforementioned regular second appeals bearing as well as petitions bearing No. interest of against the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.04.2006 whereby, appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against dismissal had been that the change 4), Rect. 8), total 1982 without jurisdiction and nullity as a tenant, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the from interfering into the JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
peaceful possession of the plaintiff from forcibly dispossessing
4.
The brief facts of that, the suit land including other land measuring 121 in village Kharkhari Bhiwan her husband as tenant since 1966 at the annual rent of an amount of Rs.1,000/ After his death, defendant receiv with the revenue officials the suit land in his name from her. She had surrendered the possession in favour of the defendant. The defendant in collusion with the village Patwari and other towards her, obtained her thumb impression know of fraud and forgery against village Patwari and the defendant. She also moved application for correction of Khasra Girdawari However, during the pe 1983-84 was prepared on the basis of false and wrong revenue entries in the Khasra Girdawari been dismissed vide order dated intends to dispossess from doing so bu
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the above from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff therefrom.
brief facts of civil suit No.1080/1985 filed by Rumal Kaur the suit land including other land measuring 121 in village Kharkhari Bhiwan had been in cultivating possession of Jai Singh as tenant since 1966 at the annual rent of an amount of Rs.1,000/ After his death, plaintiff came in cultivating possession as tenant. The received rent till Rabi 1983. Thereafter, the defendant in collusion with the revenue officials, illegally got changed the suit land in his name from Kharif 1983 without never been ejected from the suit property. She surrendered the possession in favour of the defendant. The defendant in collusion with the village Patwari and other towards her, obtained her thumb impressions on blank papers. After know of fraud and forgery, she filed a complaint to the Police authorities against village Patwari and the defendant. She also moved application for Khasra Girdawari to Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Rewari. However, during the pendency of said application was prepared on the basis of false and wrong revenue entries in the Khasra Girdawari. Her application for correction of dismissed vide order dated 05.08.1985 Ex. DA intends to dispossess her from the suit property. She requested him to but it was to no avail which necessitated
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), M-32841-2010 -3- over the above numbered suit property and therefrom. filed by Rumal Kaur, plaintiff are the suit land including other land measuring 121 kanal 14 marla situated in cultivating possession of Jai Singh, as tenant since 1966 at the annual rent of an amount of Rs.1,000/-. cultivating possession as tenant. The
1983. Thereafter, the defendant in collusion got changed Khasra Girdawari entries of 1983 without issuance of any notice to ejected from the suit property. She had never surrendered the possession in favour of the defendant. The defendant in collusion with the village Patwari and other persons, who were inimical on blank papers. After coming to , she filed a complaint to the Police authorities against village Patwari and the defendant. She also moved application for to Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Rewari. application, jamabandi for the year was prepared on the basis of false and wrong revenue entries in the . Her application for correction of Khasra Girdawari had Ex. DA. The defendant illegally from the suit property. She requested him to refrain no avail which necessitated the filing of the suit. and re situated , . cultivating possession as tenant. The
1983.
Thereafter, the defendant in collusion entries of any notice to never surrendered the possession in favour of the defendant. The defendant in who were inimical coming to , she filed a complaint to the Police authorities against village Patwari and the defendant. She also moved application for to Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Rewari. for the year was prepared on the basis of false and wrong revenue entries in the had . The defendant illegally refrain JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
5. The respondent, the plaintiff over the suit property through her sub plaintiff and her sub defendant on 22.10.1981 out of her free will and understanding. Rapat Rojnamchas No respectively, dated 22.10.1981 were entered by the Patwari which were thumb marked by her and her sub is in cultivating Kharif 1982 and Rabi 1983 receipts are forged by the plaintiff and they forcibly abducted him and brought him to where brother were obtained on some blank papers forcibly under threat and coercion. The defendant pleaded for dismissal of the suit. 6. The plaintiff filed replication, reiterating all denying averments of written statement. 7. Following issues Court:-
1. 2. RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M The respondent, defendant in written statement admitted initial the plaintiff over the suit property through her sub plaintiff and her sub-lettees surrendered the possession of the suit land to the defendant on 22.10.1981 out of her free will and understanding. Rapat No.66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 respectively, dated 22.10.1981 were entered by the Patwari which were thumb marked by her and her sub-lettees. From the crop of is in cultivating possession of the suit land. The pla and Rabi 1983. He had never issued any r receipts are forged by plaintiff.
Dalip, Jai Dayal and Ram Swarup are helping and they forcibly abducted him and brought him to where brother of aforesaid persons was posted as a Jailor obtained on some blank papers forcibly under threat and coercion. The defendant pleaded for dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff filed replication, reiterating all the averments of the plaint while denying averments of written statement. Following issues in civil suit No.1080/1985 were framed by the learned trial
Whether the plaintiff is in cultivating possession as a tenant under the defendant on the p rent for the land in question on the grounds as alleged, if so its effect? OPP. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), M-32841-2010 -4- defendant in written statement admitted initial possession of the plaintiff over the suit property through her sub-lettees but pleaded that surrendered the possession of the suit land to the defendant on 22.10.1981 out of her free will and understanding. Rapat .66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 respectively, dated 22.10.1981 were entered by the Patwari which were thumb rom the crop of Kharif 1981, the defendant possession of the suit land. The plaintiff had not paid rent for issued any receipt. The alleged Dayal and Ram Swarup are helping and they forcibly abducted him and brought him to village Bhind, posted as a Jailor and his signatures obtained on some blank papers forcibly under threat and coercion. The the averments of the plaint while were framed by the learned trial Whether the plaintiff is in cultivating possession as a tenant under the defendant on the payment of Rs.1000/- only cash rent for the land in question on the grounds as alleged, if so Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? possession of but pleaded that surrendered the possession of the suit land to the defendant on 22.10.1981 out of her free will and understanding. Rapat .66, 67 and 69 vide Ex.
DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 respectively, dated 22.10.1981 were entered by the Patwari which were thumb 1981, the defendant rent for eceipt. The alleged Dayal and Ram Swarup are helping Bhind, his signatures obtained on some blank papers forcibly under threat and coercion. The the averments of the plaint while were framed by the learned trial Whether the plaintiff is in cultivating possession as a tenant only cash rent for the land in question on the grounds as alleged, if so Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3. 8. During the pendency of the suit, in-interest were brought on record as plaintiffs. 9. The evidence was the suit wherein the defendant possession over the suit prop Roznamchas No. 66, 67 and 69 Ex.DW3/3. 10. During the pendency of the first appeal, Dass moved an application for impleading him as defendant. The said application was allowed vide ordered to be impleaded as defendant in place of Ghan Shyam Dass. However, due to inadverten the head note of rendered by learned First Appellate Court. 11. The learned First Appellate Court dismissed the findings of learned trial Court 22.03.1982 and defendant by Rumal Kaur, plaintiff and kharif 1982 plaintiff was not in cultivating possession since she delivered the possession in favor of the defendant vide to DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981. RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M
Relief. endency of the suit, Rumal Kaur, plaintiff interest were brought on record as plaintiffs. was led by the parties to the suit the suit wherein issue No.1 was decided against the plaintiff and in favou by holding that the Rumal Kaur, plaintiff possession over the suit property in favour of the defendant No. 66, 67 and 69 dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/1, Ex During the pendency of the first appeal, Ghan Shyam Dass moved an application for impleading him as defendant. The said application was allowed vide order dated 08.04.2005 and Mahab ordered to be impleaded as defendant in place of Ghan Shyam Dass.
However, due to inadvertence, name of Ghan Shyam Dass was mentioned as defendant in the head note of the impugned judgment and decree rendered by learned First Appellate Court. learned First Appellate Court dismissed the gs of learned trial Court by holding that the receipt 2.03.1982 and Ex. PW-9/E dated 7.7.1983 regarding payment of rent to the Rumal Kaur, plaintiff for the crop 1982 and Rabi 1983 respectively, are not proved whereas the plaintiff was not in cultivating possession since she delivered the possession in favor of the defendant vide Rapat Roznamchas dated 22.10.1981. , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), M-32841-2010 -5- Rumal Kaur, plaintiff died and her successors-
led by the parties to the suit. Learned trial Court dismissed against the plaintiff and in favour of Rumal Kaur, plaintiff had surrendered erty in favour of the defendant vide Rapat dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/1, Ex. DW3/2 and Ghan Shyam Dass died and Mahabir Dass moved an application for impleading him as defendant. The said
order dated 08.04.2005 and Mahabir Dass was ordered to be impleaded as defendant in place of Ghan Shyam Dass. However, name of Ghan Shyam Dass was mentioned as defendant in
judgment and decree dated 22.04.2006, learned First Appellate Court dismissed the first appeal and upheld the by holding that the receipts Ex. PW-9/B dated regarding payment of rent to the for the crop Kharif 1981 and Rabi 1982 1983 respectively, are not proved whereas the plaintiff was not in cultivating possession since she delivered the possession in Nos. 66,67 and 69 Exs. DW3/1 - dismissed r of had surrendered Rapat DW3/2 and ir Dass moved an application for impleading him as defendant. The said was ordered to be impleaded as defendant in place of Ghan Shyam Dass. However, name of Ghan Shyam Dass was mentioned as defendant in , appeal and upheld the dated regarding payment of rent to the 1982 1983 respectively, are not proved whereas the plaintiff was not in cultivating possession since she delivered the possession in Exs. DW3/1 JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
12. The RSA-2115 dated 22.04.2006
“(a) (b) (c) (d)
13. At the time of admission of RSA No.2115 ordered that “In the meantime, t to possession over suit land
14. RSA No.973 of appellants/plaintiffs
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M 2115-2006, was admitted against impugned judgment and decree dated 22.04.2006 on the following substantial questions of law:
“(a) Whether a Receipt duly proved by examining its scribe and Hand-writing Expert can be of denial of the person issuing the same? (b) Whether it was safe to place unstinted reliance upon Roznamchas Ex. DW-3/1 to Ex. DW impressions of a rustic lady alleged to have by deceit and mis-representation? (c) Whether the Receipt Ex. DW Ghan Shyam Dass landlord in token of receipt of rent of Kharif 1982 and Rabi, 1983 respondent that Rumal Kaur had surrendered possession of the land in dispute on 22.10.1981? (d) Whether the findings of facts recorded below making random observations and on wrong appreciation of the material evidence on record, enjoy the sanctity or concurrent findings so as to be immune to challenge and interference in the second appeal?
At the time of admission of RSA No.2115 of 2006 In the meantime, the parties shall maintain to possession over suit land.” RSA No.973 of 2010 arises out of dismissal of appellants/plaintiffs vide impugned judgment and decree dated 18.09.2009 of
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), M-32841-2010 -6- against impugned judgment and decree substantial questions of law:- Whether a Receipt duly proved by examining its scribe and writing Expert can be disbelieved merely on the basis person issuing the same? Whether it was safe to place unstinted reliance upon Rapat 3/1 to Ex. DW-3/3 bearing thumb- of a rustic lady alleged to have been obtained tation? x. DW-9/E dated 7.7.1983 issued by Ghan Shyam Dass landlord in token of receipt of rent of , 1983 falsifies the claim of the respondent that Rumal Kaur had surrendered possession of the land in dispute on 22.10.1981? dings of facts recorded by the Ld. Courts random observations and on wrong appreciation of the material evidence on record, enjoy the ity or concurrent findings so as to be immune to challenge and interference in the second appeal?” of 2006, on 27.09.2007, it was also he parties shall maintain status quo with regard 2010 arises out of dismissal of appeal filed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.09.2009 of against impugned judgment and decree Whether a Receipt duly proved by examining its scribe and disbelieved merely on the basis Rapat - ined 9/E dated 7.7.1983 issued by Ghan Shyam Dass landlord in token of receipt of rent of falsifies the claim of the respondent that Rumal Kaur had surrendered possession of by the Ld.
Courts random observations and on wrong appreciation of the material evidence on record, enjoy the ity or concurrent findings so as to be immune to , on 27.09.2007, it was also with regard appeal filed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.09.2009 of JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
the First Appellate Court suit No. 17 of 1987/2007
15. The civil suit No. consequential relief were in continuous cultivating possession of land comprising of No.23, Khatuni Killa No.4(5-10), No.21(4-8), Killa No.22(5 killas 9 and measuring 46 Killa No.7(3-9), 8(8 18(8-0), 19(8-0), 20(8 killas 14 and measuring 103 24.01.1979, in the reven Marusi (tenant at will). The plaintiff prayed that she be declared as owner in possession of suit property measuring 103 measuring 149 Kharkhari Bhiwan, Tehsil and District Rewari. The plaintiff also prayed that grant of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in any manner in the suit property
16. The facts of the civil suit No.1 plaintiff are that earlier Jai Singh possession of the suit property and after his death, she was in cultivating possession. Their names entered in the revenue record as ‘
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M the First Appellate Court which had been filed against dismissal of the suit No. 17 of 1987/2007. The civil suit No.17 of 1987 for declaration and consequential relief had been filed that the plaintiff and were in continuous cultivating possession of land comprising of hatuni No.23, Rect No.9 Kila No.24(3 10),5/1(6-16), Rect. No.6 Killa No.23 (4 8), Killa No.22(5-18), Rect. No.9 Killa No. and measuring 46 kanal and 9 marla 9), 8(8-2), 10(8-0), 11(8-0), 12(8 0), 20(8-0), Rect. No.10, Killa No.3(7 14 and measuring 103 kanal 9 marla in the revenue record, the plaintiffs are mentioned as (tenant at will). The plaintiff prayed that she be declared as owner in possession of suit property measuring 103 kanal measuring 149 kanal 18 marla situated in the revenue estate of village Kharkhari Bhiwan, Tehsil and District Rewari. The plaintiff also prayed that grant of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in any manner in the suit property. The facts of the civil suit No.17 dated 18.11.1987 filed that earlier Jai Singh; her husband was possession of the suit property and after his death, she was in cultivating possession.
Their names entered in the revenue record as ‘
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), M-32841-2010 -7- filed against dismissal of the civil for declaration and permanent injunction as t the plaintiff and Jai Singh, her husband were in continuous cultivating possession of land comprising of Khewat Kila No.24(3-16), 25(3-0), Rect. No.13 Rect. No.6 Killa No.23 (4-4), Rect. No.1 Killa 18), Rect. No.9 Killa No.3 (4-17), 9 (8-0) total and Khatuni No.25 Rect. No.9 0), 12(8-0), 13(8-0), 14(7-0), 17(5-0), 0), Rect. No.10, Killa No.3(7-18), 7(8-0), 4(8-0) total marla as per agreement dated ue record, the plaintiffs are mentioned as Mujara Gair (tenant at will). The plaintiff prayed that she be declared as owner in kanal 9 marla out of total land situated in the revenue estate of village Kharkhari Bhiwan, Tehsil and District Rewari. The plaintiff also prayed that grant of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in any manner in 7 dated 18.11.1987 filed by Rumal Kaur, her husband was in continuous cultivating possession of the suit property and after his death, she was in cultivating possession. Their names entered in the revenue record as ‘Mujara Gair civil as her husband Khewat 0), Rect. No.13 Rect. No.1 Killa 0) total t. No.9 0), 0) total as per agreement dated Mujara Gair (tenant at will). The plaintiff prayed that she be declared as owner in out of total land situated in the revenue estate of village Kharkhari Bhiwan, Tehsil and District Rewari. The plaintiff also prayed that grant of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in any manner in Rumal Kaur, in continuous cultivating possession of the suit property and after his death, she was in cultivating jara Gair JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Marusi’ (tenant at will) of the suit land but their possession is sufficiently long and they have become owner in possession
(a) There was continue to cultivate the land and pay the rent and she would not be ejected from the tenancy.
(b) She had incurred heavy expenditure in the improvement of they had constructed a bore and installed a tubewell and made the land permanently
24.01.1979. The electric connection was also obtained by the plaintiff with her own (c) There was huge chunk of agricultural land with the defendants but had no means to cultivate and Jai Singh, the defendants to cultivate the land and the possession was delivered to him accordingly. (d) Defendants themselves admitted occupy the land, therefore, the defendants were estopped f any right, title or interest over the suit land. (e) In view of the oral agreement between the parties, the ejectment order against the plaintiff by the Court of Assi Rewari, was further pleaded that as per the provisions of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952, 1952), the plaintiff the suit land and entitled to be declared as owner in possession of suit
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M (tenant at will) of the suit land but their possession is sufficiently long and they have become owner in possession because was an oral agreement between defendant continue to cultivate the land and pay the rent and she would not be ejected from the tenancy. She had incurred heavy expenditure in the improvement of they had constructed a bore and installed a tubewell and made the land permanently Chahi, their tenancy is recorded in writing dat
1.1979. The electric connection was also obtained by the plaintiff her own expenses. There was huge chunk of agricultural land with the defendants but had no means to cultivate and Jai Singh, husband of the plaintiff approached the defendants to cultivate the land and the possession was delivered to him accordingly. ants themselves admitted that occupy the land, therefore, the defendants were estopped f any right, title or interest over the suit land. In view of the oral agreement between the parties, the ejectment order against the plaintiff by the Court of Assi is wrong and the parties are bound by the oral agreement.
It was further pleaded that as per the provisions of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952, the plaintiff is required to be recorded as occupancy the suit land and entitled to be declared as owner in possession of suit
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), M-32841-2010 -8- (tenant at will) of the suit land but their possession is sufficiently long because; an oral agreement between defendant that the plaintiff can continue to cultivate the land and pay the rent and she would not be She had incurred heavy expenditure in the improvement of suit land as they had constructed a bore and installed a tubewell and made the land , their tenancy is recorded in writing dated
1.1979. The electric connection was also obtained by the plaintiff There was huge chunk of agricultural land with the defendants but had husband of the plaintiff approached the defendants to cultivate the land and the possession was delivered to the plaintiff has the right to occupy the land, therefore, the defendants were estopped from claiming any right, title or interest over the suit land. In view of the oral agreement between the parties, the ejectment order against the plaintiff by the Court of Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, and the parties are bound by the oral agreement. It was further pleaded that as per the provisions of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952, (for short-the Act, required to be recorded as occupancy tenants over the suit land and entitled to be declared as owner in possession of suit (tenant at will) of the suit land but their possession is sufficiently long can continue to cultivate the land and pay the rent and she would not be land as they had constructed a bore and installed a tubewell and made the land d
1.1979.
The electric connection was also obtained by the plaintiff There was huge chunk of agricultural land with the defendants but had husband of the plaintiff approached the defendants to cultivate the land and the possession was delivered to the plaintiff has the right to rom claiming In view of the oral agreement between the parties, the ejectment order , and the parties are bound by the oral agreement. It was further pleaded that as per the provisions of the Punjab Occupancy the Act, tenants over the suit land and entitled to be declared as owner in possession of suit JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
land. The plaintiff approached the defendants to get her name recorded in the revenue record postponed the they refused to accede suit. 17. The defendants objection of its maintainability and that 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short and cause of action to file the suit and that the suit was liable to be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC Ghanshyam Dass, and Rumal Kaur vs. Dharam Singh, were based on similar
facts. It was also averred that the Murti Thakurji Virajman Aasthal Baba Mohan Dass, Bharawas (hereinafter referred to as ‘Murti Thakurji’) had not been arrayed and the s Murti Thakurji pleaded that plaintiff possession had already been transferred in the name of the Singh and Rumal Kaur cultivated the suit property for few years they surrendered the possession and in this regard 67 and 69 were r the plaintiff in connivance with revenue official in her favour of land measuring 103 notice. No agreement dated 24. The defendant
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M land. The plaintiff approached the defendants to get her name recorded in the revenue record as owner in possession postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and on 13.11.1987, they refused to accede her request which necessitated The defendants in written statement contested the suit by raising preliminary objection of its maintainability and that the suit is barred under Order II Rule of Code of Civil Procedure (for short-CPC and cause of action to file the suit and that the suit was liable to be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC as the previous suits titles as Ghanshyam Dass, and Rumal Kaur vs. Dharam Singh, were based on similar
facts. It was also averred that the Murti Thakurji Virajman Aasthal Baba Mohan Dass, Bharawas (hereinafter referred to as ‘Murti Thakurji’) had not been arrayed and the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties (later Murti Thakurji was impleaded as defendant No.2). On merits, the defendants pleaded that plaintiff had not been in possession after possession had already been transferred in the name of the Singh and Rumal Kaur cultivated the suit property for few years they surrendered the possession and in this regard 67 and 69 were recorded in favour of Murti Thakurji the plaintiff in connivance with revenue official in her favour of land measuring 103 kanal No agreement dated 24.01.1979 was The defendants never permitted the plaintiff to obtain
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), M-32841-2010 -9- land. The plaintiff approached the defendants to get her name recorded as owner in possession initially, but they matter on one pretext or the other and on 13.11.1987, request which necessitated the filing of the in written statement contested the suit by raising preliminary the suit is barred under Order II Rule CPC), plaintiff had no locus standi and cause of action to file the suit and that the suit was liable to be stayed as the previous suits titles as Rumal Kaur vs. Ghanshyam Dass, and Rumal Kaur vs. Dharam Singh, were based on similar
facts. It was also averred that the Murti Thakurji Virajman Aasthal Baba Mohan Dass, Bharawas (hereinafter referred to as ‘Murti Thakurji’) had not joinder of necessary parties (later on was impleaded as defendant No.2). On merits, the defendants in possession after Kharif 1981 as the possession had already been transferred in the name of the Murti Thakurji. Jai Singh and Rumal Kaur cultivated the suit property for few years thereafter, they surrendered the possession and in this regard Rapat Roznamchas Nos.66, Murti Thakurji. However, in Rabi 1982, the plaintiff in connivance with revenue officials obtained Khasra girdawari kanal 7 marla without giving them 1.1979 was executed between the parties. never permitted the plaintiff to obtain electric connection on land. The plaintiff approached the defendants to get her name recorded but they matter on one pretext or the other and on 13.11.1987, the filing of the in written statement contested the suit by raising preliminary the suit is barred under Order II Rule locus standi and cause of action to file the suit and that the suit was liable to be stayed r vs. Ghanshyam Dass, and Rumal Kaur vs. Dharam Singh, were based on similar
facts. It was also averred that the Murti Thakurji Virajman Aasthal Baba Mohan Dass, Bharawas (hereinafter referred to as ‘Murti Thakurji’) had not on was impleaded as defendant No.2). On merits, the defendants as the . Jai thereafter, Nos.66, 1982, girdawari without giving them executed between the parties. electric connection on JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
her name. Property is owned by any right to claim admission on behalf of competent to enter into compromise No.1080 filed on 1 tenant and never claimed occupancy rights. 18. The replication controverting the averments of written statements. 19. During the pendency of civil suit No.17 of 1987 and her legal heirs/successors
20. The learned trial Court framed following iss (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
21. Evidence was led by the parties to the suit. 22. Learned trial Court plaintiffs by holding that the
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- name. Property is owned by Murti Thakurji any right to claim admission on behalf of Murti Thakurji competent to enter into compromise on behalf of filed on 12.08.1985, the plaintiff herself claimed to be tenant and never claimed occupancy rights. The replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the pleadings and controverting the averments of written statements. During the pendency of civil suit No.17 of 1987 and her legal heirs/successors-in-interest were brought on record. The learned trial Court framed following issues in civil suit No.17 of 1987 (1) Whether the plaintiffs have become owners and in possession of the suit land as alleged ? OPP (2) Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to present suit? OPP (3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (4) Whether the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC? OPD (5) Whether the plaintiffs are stopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct ? OP (6) Whether the Murti Thakurji (7) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD (8) Relief. Evidence was led by the parties to the suit. Learned trial Court rendered findings on issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 against the by holding that the Rumal Kaur, plaintiff
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -10- Murti Thakurji and Mahant was not having Murti Thakurji. Mahant was not on behalf of Murti Thakurji.
In civil suit he plaintiff herself claimed to be Gair Marusi was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the pleadings and controverting the averments of written statements. During the pendency of civil suit No.17 of 1987, plaintiff, Rumal Kaur died interest were brought on record. ues in civil suit No.17 of 1987:- Whether the plaintiffs have become owners and in possession of the suit land as alleged ? OPP Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? Whether the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC? Whether the plaintiffs are stopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct ? OPD Murti Thakurji is a necessary party? OPD Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 against the Rumal Kaur, plaintiff had herself surrendered the was not having . Mahant was not n civil suit i was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the pleadings and Rumal Kaur died Whether the plaintiffs have become owners and in try the Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? Whether the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC? Whether the plaintiffs are stopped from filing the present issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 against the had herself surrendered the JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
possession over the suit land and she cannot be held
order to claim ownership fulfill the criteria short-the Act, 1887) to prove and that suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC thereby dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.02.2007.
23. Findings of the learned trial Court Court vide impugned judgment dated 18.09.2009
24. The regular second appeal No.973 of 18.09.2009 was admitted on the
“(i) (ii)
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- possession over the suit land and she cannot be held
order to claim ownership being occupancy tenant, the plaintiff w fulfill the criteria as mentioned in Section 5 of Pun the Act, 1887) and Section 3 of the Act, 1952 to prove and that suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC thereby dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.02.2007. Findings of the learned trial Court were upheld by the learned First Appellate vide impugned judgment dated 18.09.2009 regular second appeal No.973 of 2010, against impugned judgment dated was admitted on the following substantial questions of law
“(i) Whether finding on possession of the land in dispute could be returned against the appellants on the basis of Reports Ex.DW-3/1, Ex.DW-3/2 and Ex been relied upon against them in the earlier litigation and the authenticity whereof being sub of 2006 having been admitted and still pending? (ii) Whether the findings recorded by the Ld. Courts below contrary to unimpeachable and authentic documentary evidence on record enjoy the sanctity of concurrent findings so as to be immune to challenge and interference in the second appeal ?”
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -11- possession over the suit land and she cannot be held to be in possession. In being occupancy tenant, the plaintiff was required to as mentioned in Section 5 of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (for , 1952 which the plaintiff failed to prove and that suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC. The civil suit was thereby dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.02.2007. upheld by the learned First Appellate vide impugned judgment dated 18.09.2009. against impugned judgment dated following substantial questions of law :- on possession of the land in dispute could be returned against the appellants on the basis of Reports 3/2 and Ex.DW-3/3 which had also been relied upon against them in the earlier litigation and the authenticity whereof being sub-judice in RSA No.2115 of 2006 having been admitted and still pending? Whether the findings recorded by the Ld.
Courts below to unimpeachable and authentic documentary evidence on record enjoy the sanctity of concurrent findings so as to be immune to challenge and interference in the In as required to (for which the plaintiff failed The civil suit was upheld by the learned First Appellate against impugned judgment dated on possession of the land in dispute could be returned against the appellants on the basis of Reports 3/3 which had also been relied upon against them in the earlier litigation and judice in RSA No.2115 Whether the findings recorded by the Ld. Courts below to unimpeachable and authentic documentary evidence on record enjoy the sanctity of concurrent findings so as to be immune to challenge and interference in the JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
25. At the time of admission of RSA No.973 it was also directed that “ maintained by the parties.”
26. COCP No.885 of 2010 has been filed by the appellants Sansar Devi @ Sansar Bala and others, contending that the defendants had violated the quo dated 12.03.2010 property on 25.04.2010 at about 10 destroyed all the standing crops, kothri, damaged regarding which the matter was reported to the Police by way of filing written complaint (Annexure P
27. COCP No.885 of 2010 was ordered to be heard along with 2006 vide order dated 03.10.2010 passed in this COCP. 28. On the basis of written complaint Annexure of 2010), FIR No.83 dated 08.05.2010 had been registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 427, 440, 447, 379 and 506 of IPC at P District Rewari, Haryana against Mahant Mahant Mahabir Dass of FIR No.83 dated 08.05.2010 (Annexure P
29.
CRM-M-32841 2006 and RSA No.973 of CRM-M.
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- At the time of admission of RSA No.973 of 2010, vide order dated it was also directed that “status quo with regard to possession shall be maintained by the parties.” COCP No.885 of 2010 has been filed by the appellants Sansar Devi @ Sansar Bala and others, contending that the defendants had violated the 12.03.2010 regarding possession by illegally entering in the suit property on 25.04.2010 at about 10-11 AM along with 4 destroyed all the standing crops, fences, removed , damaged the agricultural equipments and took away irrigation pipes regarding which the matter was reported to the Police by way of filing written complaint (Annexure P-4). COCP No.885 of 2010 was ordered to be heard along with vide order dated 03.10.2010 passed in this COCP. On the basis of written complaint Annexure P-4 (appended with COPC No.885 No.83 dated 08.05.2010 had been registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 427, 440, 447, 379 and 506 of IPC at P District Rewari, Haryana (Annexure P-1, appended with CRM Mahant Mahabir Dass Chela Baba Ghan Shyam Dass Mahabir Dass and others had filed CRM of FIR No.83 dated 08.05.2010 (Annexure P-1). 32841-2010, was ordered to be heard 2006 and RSA No.973 of 2010 vide order dated 1.12.2011, passed in this
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -12- 2010, vide order dated 12.03.2010, with regard to possession shall be COCP No.885 of 2010 has been filed by the appellants Sansar Devi @ Sansar Bala and others, contending that the defendants had violated the order of status regarding possession by illegally entering in the suit 11 AM along with 4-5 tractors and had removed poles, broke the lock of and took away irrigation pipes regarding which the matter was reported to the Police by way of filing written COCP No.885 of 2010 was ordered to be heard along with RSA No.2115 of vide order dated 03.10.2010 passed in this COCP.
4 (appended with COPC No.885 No.83 dated 08.05.2010 had been registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 427, 440, 447, 379 and 506 of IPC at Police Station Ram Pura, 1, appended with CRM-M-32841-2010) Ghan Shyam Dass and others. and others had filed CRM-M-32841-2010 for quashing 1). 2010, was ordered to be heard along with RSA No.2115 of
order dated 1.12.2011, passed in this 12.03.2010, with regard to possession shall be COCP No.885 of 2010 has been filed by the appellants Sansar Devi @ Sansar status regarding possession by illegally entering in the suit 5 tractors and had poles, broke the lock of and took away irrigation pipes regarding which the matter was reported to the Police by way of filing written RSA No.2115 of 4 (appended with COPC No.885 No.83 dated 08.05.2010 had been registered under Sections 147, olice Station Ram Pura, 2010) and others. 2010 for quashing No.2115 of
order dated 1.12.2011, passed in this JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
30. I have heard Mr. (in both RSAs, petitioner in COCP and respondent in CRM Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate respondent in COCP and petitioner in
31. Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate, the learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court the suit and first appeal. In fact, Jai Singh of deceased Rumal Kaur of the 122 kanal Dass defendant death of Jai Singh, thereof, as tenant under said payment of cash rent of Rs.1000/ rent for the entire land till 1983 and last having received received for Kharif received for Kharif disbelieving the of Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant Dass how his signatures are obtained on these receipts. was @ of Rs.1000/ was paid because vide receipt paid as rent for 20 years which was Rs.200/ to Rabi 1986 as per lease deed dated 29.08.1966. Thereafter,
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- have heard Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate, learned RSAs, petitioner in COCP and respondent in CRM r Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for the respondent (in both respondent in COCP and petitioner in CRM-M). Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court the suit and first appeal. In fact, Jai Singh, father of the plaintiffs and husband f deceased Rumal Kaur (original plaintiff), had been in cultivating possession kanal 16 marla of land since 1966 as tenant defendant, predecessor-in-interest of Mahabir Dass of Jai Singh, Rumal Kaur, his widow had been in continuous possession thereof, as tenant under said Ghan Shyam Dass payment of cash rent of Rs.1000/-. Ghan Shyam Dass continued rent for the entire land till 1983 and last receipt eceived rent till 1983 is Ex. PW-9/E. Vide receipt Kharif 1981 and Rabi 1982 and Kharif 1982 and Rabi 1983. disbelieving the receipts Exs. PW-9/B and PW Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant. There is no explanation from how his signatures are obtained on these receipts. was @ of Rs.1000/- but vide these receipts, an amount of Rs.800/ was paid because vide receipt Ex. PW7/C dated 17.09.1966, Rs.4,000/ paid as rent for 20 years which was Rs.200/- per month from crop 1986 as per lease deed dated 29.08.1966. Thereafter,
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -13-
learned counsel for the appellants RSAs, petitioner in COCP and respondent in CRM-M) and Mr. Sanjiv for the respondent (in both RSAs, ). counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court erroneously dismissed father of the plaintiffs and husband , had been in cultivating possession of land since 1966 as tenant under Ghan Shyam Mahabir Dass, defendant. After the his widow had been in continuous possession Ghan Shyam Dass, during her life time on Ghan Shyam Dass continued to receive receipt issued by him in token of E. Vide receipt PW-9/B rent was and vide receipt PW-9/E rent was There is no justification for 9/B and PW-9/E which bears the signatures . There is no explanation from Ghan Shyam how his signatures are obtained on these receipts. Total per annum rent amount of Rs.800/- each, as rent PW7/C dated 17.09.1966, Rs.4,000/- was per month from crop Kharif 1966 1986 as per lease deed dated 29.08.1966. Thereafter, Ghan Shyam s ) and Mr. Sanjiv RSAs, counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that erroneously dismissed father of the plaintiffs and husband , had been in cultivating possession Ghan Shyam the his widow had been in continuous possession during her life time on to receive ued by him in token of rent was was There is no justification for the signatures Ghan Shyam otal per annum rent as rent was 1966 Ghan Shyam JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
Dass refused to receive rent and provisions of Section 14A (iii) of Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1956 for depositing the rent. managed to get the entries kanal 7 marla out of 122 in his favour from of change in the thereafter, her successors Dass, defendant
32.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that learned First Appellate Court had erroneously placed unstinted reliance upon Rapat Roznamchas dated 22.10.1981 and failed to appreciate that illiterate and rustic lady, her thumb impression procured by revenue official Dass. At the instance of Patwari secured her thumb impression that she relinquished her tenancy rights in respect of the land in dispute in favour of Ghan Shyam Dass. When she came to know about it, she lodged complaint against the came out of that complaint. She also moved application before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Rewari, seeking correction of entries of Girdawari which was eventually dismissed vide order dated Ex.DA because
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- refused to receive rent and Rumal Kaur provisions of Section 14A (iii) of Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1956 for depositing the rent. Ghan Shyam Dass was very influential person and he to get the entries in the cultivation column out of 122 kanal 16 marla of land changed in his favour from Kharif 1982, in connivance with re the revenue record, Rumal Kaur, plaintiff her successors-in-interest remained in possession. Dass, defendant never came in actual physical possession of suit property.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that learned First Appellate Court had erroneously placed unstinted reliance upon Rapat Roznamchas No.66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981 and failed to appreciate that and rustic lady, her thumb impression procured by revenue officials on any pretext at the instance of Ghan Shyam At the instance of Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant secured her thumb impressions on some that she relinquished her tenancy rights in respect of the land in dispute in favour of Ghan Shyam Dass. When she came to know about it, she lodged complaint against the DW-3 Nirjan Lal Patwari f that complaint. She also moved application before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Rewari, seeking correction of entries of which was eventually dismissed vide order dated because by that time, on the basis of
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -14- Rumal Kaur had to take recourse to the provisions of Section 14A (iii) of Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1956 was very influential person and he column regarding an area of 27 of land changed in the revenue record in connivance with revenue officials. In spite Rumal Kaur, plaintiff (since deceased) and interest remained in possession. Ghan Shyam came in actual physical possession of suit property.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court had erroneously placed unstinted reliance upon .66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981 and failed to appreciate that Rumal Kaur, plaintiff being and rustic lady, her thumb impressions could have been easily on any pretext at the instance of Ghan Shyam Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant, DW-3 Nirjan Lal on some Rapat Roznamchas stating that she relinquished her tenancy rights in respect of the land in dispute in favour of Ghan Shyam Dass. When she came to know about it, she lodged 3 Nirjan Lal Patwari with local Police but nothing f that complaint. She also moved application before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Rewari, seeking correction of entries of Khasra which was eventually dismissed vide order dated 05.08.1985. that time, on the basis of Rapat Roznamchas, jamabandi had to take recourse to the provisions of Section 14A (iii) of Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1956 was very influential person and he an area of 27 in the revenue record n spite and Ghan Shyam learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court had erroneously placed unstinted reliance upon .66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 being could have been easily on any pretext at the instance of Ghan Shyam 3 Nirjan Lal stating that she relinquished her tenancy rights in respect of the land in dispute in favour of Ghan Shyam Dass. When she came to know about it, she lodged with local Police but nothing f that complaint. She also moved application before the Assistant Khasra . ndi JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
for the year 1983 Girdawari till intended to forcibly dispossess
33.
Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate that Jai Singh had been in cultivating possession of disputed property his demise in 1971, h on the same terms and conditions and surrendered the possession o Rabi 1983 vide receipt the claim of the defendant that possession was delivered to on 22.10.1981. the disputed property in the year 1981. In fact, influence and took get the revenue entries of cultivation of the land changed in his favour in connivance with change in the Khasra Girdawari Dass, defendant PW-9/B and PW issued by Ghan Shyam Dass receiving rent and only then The receipts Ex.PW trial Court and learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate statements of witnesses and erroneously
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- the year 1983-84 Ex.PQ had been prepared and entries of till Rabi 1985 had merged in the jamabandi to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land.
Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate that Jai Singh had been in cultivating possession of disputed property his demise in 1971, his widow, Rumal Kaur had been in cultivating on the same terms and conditions and had paid surrendered the possession over suit property on 22.10.1981, t 1983 vide receipt Ex. PW-9/E would not have been paid. This falsifies the claim of the defendant that possession was delivered to . There was no occasion for her to surrender the possession the disputed property in the year 1981. In fact, took undue advantage of illiteracy of get the revenue entries of cultivation of the land changed in his favour in connivance with DW3 Niranjan Lal Patwari concerned w.e.f. 1982. The Khasra Girdawari was kept a guarded secret and Dass, defendant continued to receive rent as proved from rent 9/B and PW-9/E from Kharif 1981 to Rabi Ghan Shyam Dass under his signatures and thereafter, he stopped receiving rent and only then Rumal Kaur, plaintiff The receipts Ex.PW-9/B and Ex.PW-9/E are duly proved on record but learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate statements of erroneously held that these receipts are not proved.
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -15- had been prepared and entries of Khasra had merged in the jamabandi. Ghan Shyam Dass the plaintiff from the suit land.
Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate that Jai Singh had been in cultivating possession of disputed property from 1966 until 1971 and after had been in cultivating possession had paid rent regularly. Had Rumal Kaur ver suit property on 22.10.1981, the rent up to would not have been paid. This falsifies the claim of the defendant that possession was delivered to Ghan Shyam Dass There was no occasion for her to surrender the possession of the disputed property in the year 1981. In fact, Ghan Shyam Dass misused his undue advantage of illiteracy of Rumal Kaur, managed to get the revenue entries of cultivation of the land changed in his favour in Patwari concerned w.e.f. 1982. The was kept a guarded secret and Ghan Shyam continued to receive rent as proved from rent receipts Exs. Rabi 1983. These receipts were under his signatures and thereafter, he stopped Rumal Kaur, plaintiff came to know of this fraud. are duly proved on record but learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate statements of held that these receipts are not proved. Signatures of Khasra Ghan Shyam Dass
Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate that Jai Singh had been r possession Rumal Kaur he rent up to would not have been paid. This falsifies Ghan Shyam Dass of misused his to get the revenue entries of cultivation of the land changed in his favour in Patwari concerned w.e.f. 1982. The Ghan Shyam receipts Exs. receipts were under his signatures and thereafter, he stopped . are duly proved on record but learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate statements of Signatures of JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant the handwriting Expert, PW9 Ram Swarup. for putting his signatures on these receipts in favour of
34.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submitted that which was instituted by plaintiff Singh, Nihal Singh, Rohtash Singh and K permanent injunction rest possession over land measuring 149 year 1978-79 as tenant under Sh. The said suit had been was held in possession over the suit land as tenant under Ghan Shyam Dass. This also proved that whole of the suit property and the property was not in cultivating possession through her alleged sub
35.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff wh of 2010 further Shyam Dass filed civil suit against sum of Rs.3,000/ marla including disputed property which is subject matter of civil suit No. dated 18.11.1987 before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rewari but dispute was compro Ex.PX/2 recorded to the effect that he did not want to purs be dismissed as
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant on these receipts have been the handwriting Expert, PW4 Som Nath Aggarwal PW9 Ram Swarup. There is no explanation from for putting his signatures on these receipts in favour of
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submitted that was instituted by plaintiff Rumal Kaur ihal Singh, Rohtash Singh and Kishan Singh son of Sultan Singh, for permanent injunction restraining these defendants from interfering in her possession over land measuring 149 kanal 18 marla as tenant under Sh. Ghan Shyam Dass had been decreed vide judgment Ex. was held in possession over the suit land as tenant under Ghan Shyam Dass. This also proved that Rumal Kaur was in cultivating possession as tenant over whole of the suit property and the property was not in cultivating possession ough her alleged sub-lettees.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff while addressing arguments in RSA No.973 further submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate that filed civil suit against Rumal Kaur sum of Rs.3,000/- and for her eviction from including disputed property which is subject matter of civil suit No. dated 18.11.1987 before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rewari but dispute was compromised and Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant recorded to the effect that he did not want to purs as withdrawn and that he would never eject
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -16- on these receipts have been proved by examining ath Aggarwal, PW11 Krishana Bala and There is no explanation from Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant for putting his signatures on these receipts in favour of Rumal Kaur, plaintiff.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submitted that civil suit No.367 of 1981 on 30.03.1981 against Dharam ishan Singh son of Sultan Singh, for raining these defendants from interfering in her marla as per jamabandi for the Ghan Shyam Dass Chela Sh. Bhagwan Dass. Ex.PN and Rumal Kaur, plaintiff was held in possession over the suit land as tenant under Ghan Shyam Dass. was in cultivating possession as tenant over whole of the suit property and the property was not in cultivating possession ile addressing arguments in RSA No.973 submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate that Ghan Rumal Kaur for recovery of rent for the from land measuring 147 kanal 18 including disputed property which is subject matter of civil suit No. 17 dated 18.11.1987 before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rewari but the Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant got his statement recorded to the effect that he did not want to pursue the suit and same withdrawn and that he would never eject Rumal Kaur from xamining , PW11 Krishana Bala and Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant civil suit No.367 of 1981 on 30.03.1981 against Dharam ishan Singh son of Sultan Singh, for raining these defendants from interfering in her jamabandi for the Chela Sh. Bhagwan Dass. Rumal Kaur, plaintiff was held in possession over the suit land as tenant under Ghan Shyam Dass. was in cultivating possession as tenant over whole of the suit property and the property was not in cultivating possession ile addressing arguments in RSA No.973 Ghan rent for the 18 17 he got his statement e the suit and same from JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
land in dispute dated 24.01.1979 Ex. dated 19.02.1969 with an undertaking never to back out from the compro recorded as occupancy tenant in the revenue record. Kaur, plaintiff and his successors rights being occupancy
36.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff further Panchayat was convened whereby, thumb impressions of obtained on Rapat Roznamchas is nothing on record that contents of the said explained to her and she voluntarily executed the of the defendants. T the appeal pertaining to civil suit No.17 of 1987 had already been findings of the civil suit No.1080 therefore, the said findings learned trial Court in Rapat Roznamchas to appreciate that at the time of passing impugned judgment the findings of learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court in civil suit No.1080/1985 plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as owner
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- land in dispute. The suit was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn vide order 24.01.1979 Ex. PX/3. Defendant No.1 executed one more lease deed 19.02.1969 Ex. PW9/1 accepting Rumal Kaur with an undertaking never to back out from the compro recorded as occupancy tenant in the revenue record. and his successors-in-interest could not be denied the being occupancy tenants.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that Panchayat was convened whereby, thumb impressions of Rapat Roznamchas Ex. DW3/1, Ex.DW3/2 and Ex. DW3/3. There is nothing on record that contents of the said explained to her and she voluntarily executed the of the defendants. The findings recorded by the learned the appeal pertaining to civil suit No.17 of 1987 een delivered, stands settled in civil suit No.1080 findings of the First Appellate Court rendered in appeal against dismissal of civil suit No.1080/1985 had been challenged in appeal No.RSA said findings could not have been learned trial Court erroneously placed reliance upon entries Rapat Roznamchas No. 66, 67 and 69 Ex.DW3/1 to Ex. DW3/3 to appreciate that at the time of passing impugned judgment the findings of learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court in civil suit had already been under challenge plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as owner
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -17- . The suit was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn vide order Defendant No.1 executed one more lease deed Rumal Kaur as an occupancy tenant with an undertaking never to back out from the compromise and to get her recorded as occupancy tenant in the revenue record. In view of that Rumal interest could not be denied the ownership submitted that, on 22.10.1981 Panchayat was convened whereby, thumb impressions of Rumal Kaur were Ex. DW3/1, Ex.DW3/2 and Ex. DW3/3. There is nothing on record that contents of the said Rapat Roznamchas were explained to her and she voluntarily executed the Rapat Roznamchas in favour he findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, the appeal pertaining to civil suit No.17 of 1987 by holding that the possession stands settled in civil suit No.1080/1985. Since the First Appellate Court rendered in appeal against dismissal of had been challenged in appeal No.RSA-2115-2006, not have been taken into consideration. The placed reliance upon entries dated 22.10.1981 DW3/1 to Ex. DW3/3 and failed to appreciate that at the time of passing impugned judgment dated 20.02.2007, the findings of learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court in civil suit been under challenge in RSA-2115-2006. The plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as owners because their possession as . The suit was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn vide order Defendant No.1 executed one more lease deed as an occupancy tenant mise and to get her Rumal ownership on 22.10.1981 were Ex.
DW3/1, Ex.DW3/2 and Ex. DW3/3. There were in favour , by holding that the possession the First Appellate Court rendered in appeal against dismissal of , taken into consideration. The dated 22.10.1981 and failed dated 20.02.2007, the findings of learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court in civil suit The s JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
occupancy tenants is continuously plaintiff) never surrendered her possession. 37.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court had
Order II Rule 2 CPC. The earlier suit that, plaintiff is in possession as tenant and entries in the revenue record permanent injunction as interfering in her possession had been filed possession in dispute prop instituted suit No.1080 subject matter of civil sui 103 kanal 9 marla Rule 2 CPC especially when the decision of earlier suit attained finality.
38.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that proceedings under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short against the parties by Sub Divisional Magistrate, when the pl presented copy of adjourned sine die On 25.04.2010 at about 10AM when with her son and others w successor-in-interest of Mahant
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- tenants is continuously uninterrupted never surrendered her possession.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court had erroneously
Order II Rule 2 CPC. The earlier suit No. 1080/1985 is in possession as tenant and entries in the revenue record were wrongly changed and she also sought decree permanent injunction as a consequential relief restraining the defendant from her possession whereas, the civil suit No.17 dated filed seeking declaration that plaintiff had in dispute property that also includes subject matter of suit No.1080/1985 i.e. land measuring 27 subject matter of civil suit No. 17 dated 18.11.1987 pertains to marla and suit could not have been especially when the decision of earlier suit attained finality.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that proceedings under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short against the parties by Sub Divisional Magistrate, when the pl presented copy of stay orders passed by this Court, the proceedings were sine die. The plaintiffs had sown seasonal crop over 5 acre On 25.04.2010 at about 10AM when Krishana Bala (plaintiff/PW11) along with her son and others were irrigating the crop, Mahant interest of Mahant Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -18- uninterrupted. Rumal Kaur (original
Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the learned trial Court erroneously held that suit is barred under No. 1080/1985 filed by the plaintiff was is in possession as tenant and entries in the column of cultivation were wrongly changed and she also sought decree for consequential relief restraining the defendant from the civil suit No.17 dated 18.11.1987 plaintiff had become owner in that also includes subject matter of earlier measuring 27 kanal 10 marla whereas, t No. 17 dated 18.11.1987 pertains to land measuring have been held as barred under Order II especially when the decision of earlier suit No.1080/1985 had not
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that proceedings under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short-Cr.P.C) had been initiated against the parties by Sub Divisional Magistrate, when the plaintiffs had stay orders passed by this Court, the proceedings were . The plaintiffs had sown seasonal crop over 5 acres of land. Krishana Bala (plaintiff/PW11) along irrigating the crop, Mahant Mahabir Dass, Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant along with (original
Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the learned trial Court suit is barred under was cultivation for consequential relief restraining the defendant from 18.11.1987 become owner in earlier whereas, land measuring held as barred under Order II had not
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that proceedings under Cr.P.C) had been initiated aintiffs had stay orders passed by this Court, the proceedings were of land. Krishana Bala (plaintiff/PW11) along , along with JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
Satvir Singh, Ram Avatar, Kalu Ram tractors and damaged the standing crop and agricultural equipments, broke the lock of kothri damage to the tune of Rs.1 lakh. While going away they also insta boards scribing Kharkhari”. When Singh, Devi came on the spot and saved them. committed offence regarding which FIR No.83 dated 08.05.2010 had been registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 427, 440, 447, 379 and 506 of IPC at Police Station Ram Pura, District Rewari, Haryana (Annexure P them. Learned counsel f proceedings against the defendants and the persons named in the FIR for violating the stay order COCP-885-2010 criminal case by way of dismissal of
39. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant submitted that plaintiff had relinquished matter of both the suits 69 Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 continued to be in possession of defendant and rent was never paid by the plaintiff thereafter dated 07.07.1983 statements of the witnesses. trial Court rightly held that receipts are not proved and plaintif
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- Satvir Singh, Ram Avatar, Kalu Ram and others came on the spot with 5 tractors and damaged the standing crop and agricultural equipments, broke the and other things, took away 30 pipes, wire and poles, caused damage to the tune of Rs.1 lakh. While going away they also insta scribing “Land of Baba Mohan Dass agricultural farm Bhiw Kharkhari”. When Krishana Bala and others raised alarm, Narinder Singh, Ajit Singh, Devi came on the spot and saved them. committed offence regarding which FIR No.83 dated 08.05.2010 had been registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 427, 440, 447, 379 and 506 of IPC at Police Station Ram Pura, District Rewari, Haryana (Annexure P them.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs prayed for initiating contempt proceedings against the defendants and the persons named in the FIR for stay orders of this Court by way of acceptance of 2010 and for vacation of stay on the criminal tr by way of dismissal of petition i.e. earned counsel for the defendant submitted that had relinquished her possession over the property which is subject both the suits, on 22.10.1981 vide Rapat Roznamchas Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3, respectively to be in possession of defendant and rent was never paid by the thereafter. The receipts Ex. PW-9/B dated 22.03.1982 and Ex. 7.1983 were forged and fabricated of the witnesses. The defendant never issued any receipts. trial Court rightly held that receipts are not proved and plaintif
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -19- and others came on the spot with 5 tractors and damaged the standing crop and agricultural equipments, broke the and other things, took away 30 pipes, wire and poles, caused damage to the tune of Rs.1 lakh. While going away they also installed two sign ohan Dass agricultural farm Bhiwan Krishana Bala and others raised alarm, Narinder Singh, Ajit Singh, Devi came on the spot and saved them. Mahabir Dass and others committed offence regarding which FIR No.83 dated 08.05.2010 had been registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 427, 440, 447, 379 and 506 of IPC at Police Station Ram Pura, District Rewari, Haryana (Annexure P-1) against or the plaintiffs prayed for initiating contempt proceedings against the defendants and the persons named in the FIR for by way of acceptance of petition i.e. and for vacation of stay on the criminal trial in the abovesaid petition i.e. CRM-M-32841-2010. earned counsel for the defendant submitted that Rumal Kaur, possession over the property which is subject Rapat Roznamchas No.66, 67 and respectively and thereafter, the property to be in possession of defendant and rent was never paid by the dated 22.03.1982 and Ex.
PW-9/E and were not proved from the The defendant never issued any receipts. Learned trial Court rightly held that receipts are not proved and plaintiff had not and others came on the spot with 5 tractors and damaged the standing crop and agricultural equipments, broke the and other things, took away 30 pipes, wire and poles, caused ed two sign n Krishana Bala and others raised alarm, Narinder Singh, Ajit and others committed offence regarding which FIR No.83 dated 08.05.2010 had been registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 427, 440, 447, 379 and 506 of IPC at 1) against or the plaintiffs prayed for initiating contempt proceedings against the defendants and the persons named in the FIR for petition i.e. ial in the abovesaid Rumal Kaur, possession over the property which is subject No.66, 67 and reafter, the property to be in possession of defendant and rent was never paid by the 9/E not proved from the Learned f had not JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
pleaded and proved marked entries in the cogent and convincing evidence plaintiff are not favour of plaintiff. execute any agreement/compromise in favour of the plaintiff because the suit property is over the suit property criteria as stated
1952. The plaintiff had 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 respectively, dated
22.10.1981. He vehemently prayed for dismissal of appeals, contempt petition i.e. petition i.e. CRM over the suit property at the time of filing of the civil suits of violation of stay order or interference in their possession do not arise at all. 40. I have given considerable through the records, statements of witnesses and documents
41. Substantial ques and 2 in RSA No. 973 of together for convenience. 42. There are concurrent findings of learned Courts below that
plaintiff relinquished possession over the suit property on 22.10.1981 in the
presence of DW
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- and proved how fraud was committed upon her marked entries in the Rapat Roznamchas. The fraud is to be proved by leading cogent and convincing evidence.
The statements of witnesses examined by the plaintiff are not reliable. They were interest favour of plaintiff. Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant execute any agreement/compromise in favour of the plaintiff because the suit property is Murti Thakurji. The plaintiff over the suit property. She and her successors stated in Section 5 of the Act of 1887 he plaintiff had never challenged the entries 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 respectively, dated
22.10.1981. He vehemently prayed for dismissal of contempt petition i.e. COCP-885-2010 CRM-M-32841-2010, since the plaintiffs were never in possession over the suit property at the time of filing of the civil suits of violation of stay order or interference in their possession do not arise at all. I have given considerable thought to the rival submissions an through the records, statements of witnesses and documents Substantial questions of law Nos. A to D in RSA No. and 2 in RSA No. 973 of 2010 are interconnected and are bein for convenience. There are concurrent findings of learned Courts below that plaintiff relinquished possession over the suit property on 22.10.1981 in the DW-3 Niranjan Dass, Patwari and others
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -20- how fraud was committed upon her when she thumb . The fraud is to be proved by leading . The statements of witnesses examined by the reliable. They were interested witnesses who deposed in Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant was not in a position to execute any agreement/compromise in favour of the plaintiff because owner of . The plaintiff cannot claim ownership rights he and her successors-in-interest failed to fulfill the the Act of 1887 and Section 3 of the Act of entries in Rapat Roznamchas No. 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 respectively, dated
22.10.1981. He vehemently prayed for dismissal of both the regular second 2010 and acceptance of quashing , since the plaintiffs were never in possession over the suit property at the time of filing of the civil suits.
Therefore question of violation of stay order or interference in their possession do not arise at all. thought to the rival submissions and have gone through the records, statements of witnesses and documents carefully. tions of law Nos. A to D in RSA No.2115 of 2006 and Nos.1 2010 are interconnected and are being taken up There are concurrent findings of learned Courts below that Rumal Kaur, plaintiff relinquished possession over the suit property on 22.10.1981 in the and others and entries in the Rapat when she thumb . The fraud is to be proved by leading . The statements of witnesses examined by the witnesses who deposed in was not in a position to owner of cannot claim ownership rights fulfill the Act of . 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 respectively, dated regular second quashing , since the plaintiffs were never in possession question d have gone of 2006 and Nos.1 g taken up , plaintiff relinquished possession over the suit property on 22.10.1981 in the Rapat JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
Roznamcha Nos. 66, 67 and 69 were made vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and
DW3/3 respectively, dated 22.10.1981. 43. In civil suit No.1080 of Plaintiff No.2 Krisha The defendants have examined 7 witnesses including the testimon Shyam Dass, defendant
44. Krishana Bala (PW11) in her testimony corroborated the averments of plaint and she specifically stated that suit land was thereafter by her mother, amount of Rs.1000/ defendant up to 1983. She also proved the receipt Ex. stated that Ghan Shyam Dass had never been in possession of the suit land. 45. The statement of PW Singh, PW2-Rohtash
46. PW2-Rohtash during cross examination admitted that he had filed suit for recovery of money against dismissed. 47.
PW10-Dalip Singh during cross examination stated that he and his brother Jai Dayal filed a civil s Shyam Dass, defendant dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Court and appeal filed by him is pending in this Court. 48. PW3 Mahinde Board proved that
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- Nos. 66, 67 and 69 were made vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 respectively, dated 22.10.1981. In civil suit No.1080 of 1985, the plaintiffs have examined 13 witnesses. iff No.2 Krishana Bala; daughter of Rumal The defendants have examined 7 witnesses including the testimon Shyam Dass, defendant as DW7. Bala (PW11) in her testimony corroborated the averments of plaint and she specifically stated that suit land was cultivated earlier by her fath thereafter by her mother, Rumal Kaur since 1965 Rs.1000/-. The rent regarding the suit land was received by the defendant up to 1983. She also proved the receipt Ex. stated that Ghan Shyam Dass had never been in possession of the suit land. The statement of PW-11 Krishana Bala is also corroborated Rohtash, PW10-Dalip Singh. Rohtash during cross examination admitted that he had filed suit for recovery of money against Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant Dalip Singh during cross examination stated that he and his brother Jai Dayal filed a civil suit pertaining to 11 killas of land of temple against defendant on the basis of agreement to sell and that suit had been dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Court and appeal filed by him is pending in this Court. PW3 Mahinder Singh, Upper Division Clerk of Haryana State Electricity that meter No. BAAG 569 was released on 31.08.1975. , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -21- Nos. 66, 67 and 69 were made vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and the plaintiffs have examined 13 witnesses. Rumal Kaur was examined as PW11.
The defendants have examined 7 witnesses including the testimony of Ghan Bala (PW11) in her testimony corroborated the averments of plaint cultivated earlier by her father and since 1965 at the annual rent of an . The rent regarding the suit land was received by the defendant up to 1983. She also proved the receipt Ex.PW-9/E and further stated that Ghan Shyam Dass had never been in possession of the suit land. is also corroborated by PW1 Pratap Rohtash during cross examination admitted that he had filed suit for Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant which had since been Dalip Singh during cross examination stated that he and his brother Jai uit pertaining to 11 killas of land of temple against Ghan on the basis of agreement to sell and that suit had been dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Court and appeal filed by him is r Singh, Upper Division Clerk of Haryana State Electricity No. BAAG 569 was released on 31.08.1975. Nos. 66, 67 and 69 were made vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and the plaintiffs have examined 13 witnesses. was examined as PW11. Ghan Bala (PW11) in her testimony corroborated the averments of plaint er and an . The rent regarding the suit land was received by the and further by PW1 Pratap Rohtash during cross examination admitted that he had filed suit for which had since been Dalip Singh during cross examination stated that he and his brother Jai Ghan on the basis of agreement to sell and that suit had been dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Court and appeal filed by him is r Singh, Upper Division Clerk of Haryana State Electricity JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
49. PW4 Som Nath Aggarwal, Handw thumb impression and Q2 on the lease 06.07.1966, mark Q4 on the lease dated 06.07.1966, mark Q6 on the receipt dated receipt dated 17. were compared by him, with the Shyam Dass taken in the court on 11. graphic enlargements Ex. PW disputed thumb mark SA were of one and the same person.
He has also stated that t signatures marks A1, A3 on the lease 29.08.1966, marks A5 to A7 on the agreement dated 29. the receipt of the year 1981 A10 on the receipt d 17.09.1966, mark A12 on the receipt dated 12. receipt dated 20. 24.01.1979, mark A16 on the receipt dated 15. receipt dated 04.08.1970, were compared by him with the comparison signatures of Ghan Shyam Dass mark S1 present on the back of the stay order dated 16. and also with specimen signatures mark S2 11.04.1989, in original as well as with photographic enlargements Ex. PW
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- PW4 Som Nath Aggarwal, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert examined the thumb impressions and stated that the disputed thumb and Q2 on the lease deed dated 13.8.1965, mark Q3 on the lease 06.07.1966, mark Q4 on the lease deed dated 19. 7.1966, mark Q6 on the receipt dated ed 17.09.1966, mark Q8 and 29 on the agreement dated were compared by him, with the sample thumb Shyam Dass taken in the court on 11.04.1989 in original as well as with photo graphic enlargements Ex. PW-4/1 to Ex. PW disputed thumb impressions mark Q1 to Q99 and sample thumb mark SA were of one and the same person. He has also stated that t signatures marks A1, A2 and A2A on the lease deed dated 13. A3 on the lease-deed dated 06.07.1966, mark A4 on the lease deed dated 66, marks A5 to A7 on the agreement dated 29. the receipt of the year 1981-82, mark A9 on the receipt dated 28. 10 on the receipt dated 08.07.1966, mark A11 on the receipt dated 9.1966, mark A12 on the receipt dated 12. receipt dated 20.07.1980, mark A14 and mark 1.1979, mark A16 on the receipt dated 15. receipt dated 07.07.1983, marks A18 and A19 on the agreement dated 8.1970, were compared by him with the comparison signatures of Ghan Shyam Dass mark S1 present on the back of the stay order dated 16.
and also with specimen signatures mark S2 4.1989, in original as well as with photographic enlargements Ex. PW
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -22- riting and Finger Print Expert examined the the disputed thumb impressions mark Q1 13.8.1965, mark Q3 on the lease deed dated deed dated 19.08.66, mark Q5 on the receipt 7.1966, mark Q6 on the receipt dated 08.07.1966, mark Q7 on the 66, mark Q8 and 29 on the agreement dated 04.08.1970 sample thumb impressions mark SA of Ghan 4.1989 in original as well as with photo- 4/1 to Ex. PW-4/10. He has opined that the Q99 and sample thumb impression mark SA were of one and the same person. He has also stated that the disputed A2 and A2A on the lease deed dated 13.08.1965, mark 7.1966, mark A4 on the lease deed dated 66, marks A5 to A7 on the agreement dated 29.02.1964, mark A8 on 82, mark A9 on the receipt dated 28.04.1981, mark 7.1966, mark A11 on the receipt dated 9.1966, mark A12 on the receipt dated 12.03.1962, mark A13 on the mark A15 on the agreement dated 1.1979, mark A16 on the receipt dated 15.06.1978, mark A17 on the 7.1983, marks A18 and A19 on the agreement dated 8.1970, were compared by him with the comparison signatures of Ghan Shyam Dass mark S1 present on the back of the stay order dated 16.08.1985 and also with specimen signatures mark S2 to S6 taken in the court on 4.1989, in original as well as with photographic enlargements Ex.
PW- riting and Finger Print Expert examined the ons mark Q1 deed dated 8.66, mark Q5 on the receipt 7.1966, mark Q7 on the 8.1970 impressions mark SA of Ghan - opined that the impression he disputed 8.1965, mark 7.1966, mark A4 on the lease deed dated 2.1964, mark A8 on 4.1981, mark 7.1966, mark A11 on the receipt dated 3.1962, mark A13 on the A15 on the agreement dated e 7.1983, marks A18 and A19 on the agreement dated 8.1970, were compared by him with the comparison signatures of Ghan 8.1985 to S6 taken in the court on - JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
4/11 to Ex.PW A-19 and comparison signature and specimen signatures mark S2 to S6 were one of the same person. He has proved his report Ex. PW
50. PW4 Som Nath Aggarwal when subjected to cross examination stated that he had not examined the body of
51. PW5 Banvari Lal also proved signatures of agreement Ex. PW5/A.
52. PW6 Ratan Lal Stamp Vendor stated that as per entry No. 2755 dated 08.10.1969 in his register, stamp paper was given to defendant through Bhagwan Dass for agreement. 53. PW7 Durga Prasad st on the instructions of
54. PW8 Kapil Kumar also proved entry No.64 dated 19.2.1970 vide Ex. PW8/A in his register and when subjected to cross examination, he stated that was written in his presence. 55. PW9 Ram Swarup proved his signatures on the lease deeds dated 29.08.1966 and 18.04.1981 Ex. PW9/A documents and receipt Exs. PW9/C,
56. Cross examination of PW9 denied any litigation pending between his brothers Dalip and Jai Dayal and Ghan Shyam Dass civil suit by his brother against was dismissed. He also expressed his ignorance regarding
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- 4/11 to Ex.PW-4/17. He has opined that the disputed signatures mark A 19 and comparison signature and specimen signatures mark S2 to S6 were the same person. He has proved his report Ex. PW PW4 Som Nath Aggarwal when subjected to cross examination stated that he had not examined the body of the writing of the receipt mark X. PW5 Banvari Lal also proved signatures of Ghan PW5/A. 6 Ratan Lal Stamp Vendor stated that as per entry No. 2755 dated 8.10.1969 in his register, stamp paper was given to through Bhagwan Dass for agreement.
7 Durga Prasad stated that lease deed dated 13. on the instructions of Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant PW8 Kapil Kumar also proved entry No.64 dated 19.2.1970 vide Ex. PW8/A in his register and when subjected to cross examination, he stated that was written in his presence. PW9 Ram Swarup proved his signatures on the lease deeds dated 8.1966 and 04.08.1970. He also proved his signatures on re 4.1981 Ex. PW9/A and receipt dated 12.03.1982 Ex. uments and receipt Exs. PW9/C, PW9/D and Cross examination of PW9-Ram Swarup is material piece of evidence. He denied any litigation pending between his brothers Dalip and Jai Dayal and Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant. He also express civil suit by his brother against Ghan Shyam Dass was dismissed. He also expressed his ignorance regarding
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -23- 4/17. He has opined that the disputed signatures mark A-1 to 19 and comparison signature and specimen signatures mark S2 to S6 were the same person. He has proved his report Ex. PW-4/27. PW4 Som Nath Aggarwal when subjected to cross examination stated that he writing of the receipt mark X. Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant on 6 Ratan Lal Stamp Vendor stated that as per entry No. 2755 dated 8.10.1969 in his register, stamp paper was given to Ghan Shyam Dass, through Bhagwan Dass for agreement. ed dated 13.08.1965 was scribed by him defendant. PW8 Kapil Kumar also proved entry No.64 dated 19.2.1970 vide Ex. PW8/A in his register and when subjected to cross examination, he stated that nothing PW9 Ram Swarup proved his signatures on the lease deeds dated 06.07.1966,
8.1970. He also proved his signatures on receipt dated and receipt dated 12.03.1982 Ex. PW-9/B as well as PW9/D and PW-9/E. Ram Swarup is material piece of evidence. He denied any litigation pending between his brothers Dalip and Jai Dayal and . He also expressed ignorance regarding filing of Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant and that the same was dismissed.
He also expressed his ignorance regarding two cases pending 1 to 19 and comparison signature and specimen signatures mark S2 to S6 were PW4 Som Nath Aggarwal when subjected to cross examination stated that he on 6 Ratan Lal Stamp Vendor stated that as per entry No. 2755 dated Ghan Shyam Dass, 8.1965 was scribed by him PW8 Kapil Kumar also proved entry No.64 dated 19.2.1970 vide Ex. PW8/A nothing 7.1966, ceipt dated as well as Ram Swarup is material piece of evidence. He denied any litigation pending between his brothers Dalip and Jai Dayal and ed ignorance regarding filing of and that the same cases pending JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
between his son Rohtash and SDM. At another stage of his cross filed by his brothers Dalip and Jai Dayal against on the basis of agreement. He also stated that he could not say as to by whom receipt dated 18. any payment was made at that time or not. He also deposed that he could not say whether and by whom receipt he could not disclose whether any payment was mad
57. PW12 Satish Kumar brought the summoned file titled Ghan Shyam Dass vs. Rumal Kaur decided on 21. 58. PW13 Sumer Singh proved the copy of plaint vide Ex. PW summoned file of case title Ghan Shyam Dass vs.
59. In order to rebut the evidence of these witnesses, stepped into the witness box written statement. He stated that he had been cultivating the suit land for the last 12-13 years. Bharawas. Dharam Singh, Nihal, Rohtash and were present in the Panchayat and in that Panchayat, these persons relinquished the possession of the land of the temple. statements before the Patwari was ever taken by him from suit land after that day and her children by Nihal, Rohtash and Dalip and taken to
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- between his son Rohtash and Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant .
At another stage of his cross-examination, he admitted that a suit was filed by his brothers Dalip and Jai Dayal against on the basis of agreement. He also stated that he could not say as to by whom receipt dated 18.04.1981 was scribed. He also any payment was made at that time or not. He also deposed that he could not ay whether and by whom receipt Ex. PW9/A was scribed. He also stated that he could not disclose whether any payment was mad PW12 Satish Kumar brought the summoned file titled Ghan Shyam Dass vs. decided on 21.01.1979. PW13 Sumer Singh proved the copy of plaint vide Ex. PW summoned file of case title Ghan Shyam Dass vs. In order to rebut the evidence of these witnesses, stepped into the witness box as DW7 and corroborated the averments of written statement. He stated that he had been cultivating the suit land for the 13 years. About 10-12 years back, a Panchyat was held in the te Bharawas. Dharam Singh, Nihal, Rohtash and were present in the Panchayat and in that Panchayat, these persons relinquished the possession of the land of the temple. statements before the Patwari, appended their thumb was ever taken by him from Rumal Kaur, plaintiff suit land after that day. The suit land had not been cultivated by and her children thereafter. He also specifically stated that he was kidnapped by Nihal, Rohtash and Dalip and taken to
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -24- Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant in the Court of examination, he admitted that a suit was filed by his brothers Dalip and Jai Dayal against Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant on the basis of agreement. He also stated that he could not say as to by whom 981 was scribed. He also was unable to disclose whether any payment was made at that time or not. He also deposed that he could not Ex. PW9/A was scribed.
He also stated that he could not disclose whether any payment was made at that time or not. PW12 Satish Kumar brought the summoned file titled Ghan Shyam Dass vs. PW13 Sumer Singh proved the copy of plaint vide Ex. PW-13/A of the summoned file of case title Ghan Shyam Dass vs. Rumal Kaur. In order to rebut the evidence of these witnesses, Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant and corroborated the averments of written statement. He stated that he had been cultivating the suit land for the k, a Panchyat was held in the temple at Bharawas. Dharam Singh, Nihal, Rohtash and Rumal Kaur and other persons were present in the Panchayat and in that Panchayat, these persons relinquished the possession of the land of the temple. They also gave , appended their thumb impressions and nothing Rumal Kaur, plaintiff or her children regarding the he suit land had not been cultivated by Rumal Kaur . He also specifically stated that he was kidnapped by Nihal, Rohtash and Dalip and taken to village Bhind and his thumb of examination, he admitted that a suit was Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant on the basis of agreement. He also stated that he could not say as to by whom whether any payment was made at that time or not. He also deposed that he could not Ex. PW9/A was scribed. He also stated that PW12 Satish Kumar brought the summoned file titled Ghan Shyam Dass vs. 13/A of the Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant and corroborated the averments of written statement. He stated that he had been cultivating the suit land for the mple at and other persons were present in the Panchayat and in that Panchayat, these persons They also gave ing or her children regarding the Rumal Kaur . He also specifically stated that he was kidnapped Bhind and his thumb JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
impression was forcibly taken on stamp papers and no fraud was played upon the persons who relinquished the thumb impression
60. DW1 Dharam Singh, corroborated the statements of DW7
61.
Defendants also examined DW3 Niranjan Lal 1981-82 as Patwari Rapat Roznamchas Dhani Ram Patwari. village Kharkhari Bhiwan was part of Halqua Bhandor. No.66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 respectively, dated 22.10.1981 were thumb marked Nambardar (PW9) Roznamchas were read over to after admitting the same to be correct. He further stated Roznamchas No.67 and 69 were also read over to marked these Rapat Roznamchas correct. He also proved the copies of these 3/1, DW-3/2 and DW Nihal Singh was alive on 22.10.1981
62. In civil suit No.17 of 1987 Som Nath Agg Durga Prashad, PW8 Kapil Kumar Gupta, PW9 Ram
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- impression was forcibly taken on stamp papers and no fraud was played upon the persons who relinquished their possession on the land and appended their thumb impressions. Dharam Singh, DW-4 Gajender, DW5 Balbir, and DW6 Mani Ram corroborated the statements of DW7 Ghan Shyam Dass, also examined DW3 Niranjan Lal Patwari of Halqua Bhandor. At the time of recording his statement, Rapat Roznamchas for the year 1981-82 was produced in the Court by DW2 Dhani Ram Patwari. DW3 Niranjan Lal, specifically stated that at that time Kharkhari Bhiwan was part of Halqua Bhandor. No.66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 respectively, dated 22.10.1981 were entered by him with his hand. by Rumal Kaur and Bhikha Ram, (PW9) and Surendar Nambardar were read over to Rumal Kaur and she thumb marked the same after admitting the same to be correct. He further stated No.67 and 69 were also read over to Rapat Roznamchas after admitting the contents thereof to be . He also proved the copies of these Rapat Roznamchas 3/2 and DW-3/3. During the cross- Nihal Singh was alive on 22.10.1981. In civil suit No.17 of 1987 plaintiffs examined as many as 11 witnesses.
arwal, PW5 Banwari Lal, PW6 Rattan Lal Stamp Vendor, PW7 Durga Prashad, PW8 Kapil Kumar Gupta, PW9 Ram
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -25- impression was forcibly taken on stamp papers and no fraud was played upon ir possession on the land and appended their 4 Gajender, DW5 Balbir, and DW6 Mani Ram Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant. also examined DW3 Niranjan Lal who was deputed in the year At the time of recording his statement, 82 was produced in the Court by DW2 specifically stated that at that time Kharkhari Bhiwan was part of Halqua Bhandor. Rapat Rojnamchas No.66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 respectively, dated by him with his hand. Rapat Roznamcha No.66 was and Bhikha Ram, signed by Ram Swarup mbardar. The contents of Rapat and she thumb marked the same after admitting the same to be correct. He further stated that contents of Rapat No.67 and 69 were also read over to Rumal Kaur and she thumb after admitting the contents thereof to be Rapat Roznamchas vide Ex. DW- -examination, he admitted that plaintiffs examined as many as 11 witnesses. PW4 rwal, PW5 Banwari Lal, PW6 Rattan Lal Stamp Vendor, PW7 Durga Prashad, PW8 Kapil Kumar Gupta, PW9 Ram Swarup, PW11 Krishana impression was forcibly taken on stamp papers and no fraud was played upon ir possession on the land and appended their 4 Gajender, DW5 Balbir, and DW6 Mani Ram who was deputed in the year At the time of recording his statement, 82 was produced in the Court by DW2 specifically stated that at that time s No.66, 67 and 69 vide Ex.
DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 respectively, dated s Ram Swarup Rapat and she thumb marked the same Rapat and she thumb after admitting the contents thereof to be - admitted that PW4 rwal, PW5 Banwari Lal, PW6 Rattan Lal Stamp Vendor, PW7 , PW11 Krishana JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
Bala, witnesses of civil suit No.1080 of 1985 are examin of 1987 as PW6, PW3, PW8, PW11, PW9 and PW12, respectively. produced by PW3 Mahinder Singh No.1080 of 1985 is brought on record by PW4 Gurdial Singh in civil suit No.17 of 1987 examined as PW7. examined in rebuttal in civil suit No.17/ plaintiffs examined PW2 Surjeet Singh, PW5 Singh who in their respective oral testimonies corroborated the statement of Krishana Bala, daughter of statements are on similar lines in both the civil suits, therefore, for the sake of brevity, there is no need to reproduce their testimonies. 63. Copies of mutation Ex. PT and Ex. PU, its H PU/T, copy of statement of Ghan Shyam Dass, Ex. PV, copy of judgment and decree dated 18.11.1996, Ex. PW tendered in rebuttal evidence by the plaintiffs. 64. The defendants examined Niranjan Lal Patwari as DW3 in civi 1987 and proved the DW3/2 and DW3/3
65. Seven defendant witnesses are examined in civil suit No. 17 of 1987. Besides the testimony of Niranjan Lal Patwari DW3, the remaining witnesses examined in this civil suit a (DW2) who proved the certified c vs. Ghan Shyam Dass
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- Bala, witnesses of civil suit No.1080 of 1985 are examin as PW6, PW3, PW8, PW11, PW9 and PW12, respectively. by PW3 Mahinder Singh, Upper Division Clerk in HSEB in civil suit of 1985 is brought on record by PW4 Gurdial Singh in civil suit No.17 of 1987, when he stepped into the witness box as PW4 and then examined as PW7. PW13 Sumer Singh examined in civil suit No. 1080 rebuttal in civil suit No.17/1987. plaintiffs examined PW2 Surjeet Singh, PW5 Singh who in their respective oral testimonies corroborated the statement of Krishana Bala, daughter of Rumal Kaur; statements are on similar lines in both the civil suits, therefore, for the sake of brevity, there is no need to reproduce their testimonies. utation Ex. PT and Ex. PU, its Hindi translation Ex. PT/T and PU/T, copy of statement of Ghan Shyam Dass, Ex.
PV, copy of judgment and decree dated 18.11.1996, Ex. PW and Ex. PX, agreement mark P2 were tendered in rebuttal evidence by the plaintiffs. The defendants examined Niranjan Lal Patwari as DW3 in civi 1987 and proved the Rapat Roznamchas No. 66, 67 and 69 vide DW3/3, respectively. Seven defendant witnesses are examined in civil suit No. 17 of 1987. Besides the testimony of Niranjan Lal Patwari DW3, the remaining witnesses examined in this civil suit are Gowardhan, copyist DW1, Puran Lal Clerk (DW2) who proved the certified copy of plaint of civil suit titled Ghan Shyam Dass as Ex. D1, Sh. Sunil Yadav, Advocate (DW
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -26- Bala, witnesses of civil suit No.1080 of 1985 are examined in civil suit No.17 as PW6, PW3, PW8, PW11, PW9 and PW12, respectively. The record Upper Division Clerk in HSEB in civil suit of 1985 is brought on record by PW4 Gurdial Singh in civil suit when he stepped into the witness box as PW4 and then PW13 Sumer Singh examined in civil suit No. 1080/1985 is
1987. Besides these witnesses, plaintiffs examined PW2 Surjeet Singh, PW5 Suraj Bhan and PW10 Umaro Singh who in their respective oral testimonies corroborated the statement of original plaintiff. Since their statements are on similar lines in both the civil suits, therefore, for the sake of brevity, there is no need to reproduce their testimonies. indi translation Ex. PT/T and Ex. PU/T, copy of statement of Ghan Shyam Dass, Ex. PV, copy of judgment and and Ex. PX, agreement mark P2 were
The defendants examined Niranjan Lal Patwari as DW3 in civil suit No.17 of . 66, 67 and 69 vide Exs. DW3/1, Seven defendant witnesses are examined in civil suit No. 17 of 1987. Besides the testimony of Niranjan Lal Patwari DW3, the remaining witnesses who are Gowardhan, copyist DW1, Puran Lal Clerk opy of plaint of civil suit titled Rumal Kaur 1, Sh.
Sunil Yadav, Advocate (DW4) who ed in civil suit No.17 The record Upper Division Clerk in HSEB in civil suit of 1985 is brought on record by PW4 Gurdial Singh in civil suit when he stepped into the witness box as PW4 and then is ides these witnesses, Suraj Bhan and PW10 Umaro Singh who in their respective oral testimonies corroborated the statement of original plaintiff. Since their statements are on similar lines in both the civil suits, therefore, for the sake of . PU/T, copy of statement of Ghan Shyam Dass, Ex. PV, copy of judgment and and Ex. PX, agreement mark P2 were l suit No.17 of Exs. DW3/1, Seven defendant witnesses are examined in civil suit No. 17 of 1987. Besides are Gowardhan, copyist DW1, Puran Lal Clerk Rumal Kaur 4) who JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
identified signatures of his father Roznamchas Nos. 66, 67 and 69 vide respectively. He also stated about his presence at that time and that contents of these rapats were read over to the same. Puran Singh (DW5), supported the case of the No.17/1987, Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant statement recorded in civil suit No. 1080/1985 is civil suit No.17/1987. The documents tendered
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- identified signatures of his father Surender Singh Nos. 66, 67 and 69 vide Exs. DW3/1, DW3/2 and . He also stated about his presence at that time and that contents of these rapats were read over to Rumal Kaur, who put Puran Singh (DW5), Ram Avtar (DW6) and supported the case of the defendants. During the proceedings of the civil suit Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant had died statement recorded in civil suit No. 1080/1985 is civil suit No.17/1987. The documents tendered by the defendants are as under:
Ex. D1-
Pedigree table Ex.D2-
Jamabandi Ex. D3-
Jamabandi Ex. D4-
Jamabandi Exs.
D5, D6 and D7- Rapat Nos.75, 78 and 79 Ex. D8-
Rapat Nos.80 Ex. D9
Pedigree table Ex. D10-
Mutation No.2325 dated
02. Exs. D11 and D12-
Judgment and decree dated
24.
Ex. D13-
General Power of Attorney dated
10.10.1983 Ex. D14-
Mutation No.182 dated
09.12.1987 Exs. D15 to D18- Jamabandis Ex. D19-
Khasra
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -27- nder Singh Nambardar On Rapat Exs. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3, . He also stated about his presence at that time and that contents of who put her thumb impressions on Ram Avtar (DW6) and Dalip Singh Nambardar, During the proceedings of the civil suit had died. The certified copy of his statement recorded in civil suit No. 1080/1985 is exhibited vide Ex. DW20 in by the defendants are as under:- Pedigree table Jamabandi for the year 1906-07 Jamabandi for the year 1938-39 Jamabandi for the year 1961-62 Rapat Nos.75, 78 and 79 Rapat Nos.80-81 Pedigree table Mutation No.2325 dated 2.08.1988
Judgment and decree dated 24.01.1994 General Power of Attorney dated 10.10.1983 Mutation No.182 dated 09.12.1987 Jamabandis hasra Girdawari Rapat , . He also stated about his presence at that time and that contents of on , During the proceedings of the civil suit certified copy of his in JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
66. In additional evidence, tendered by the defendants which are as under;
67. In rebuttal to additional evidence of the defendants, plaintiffs Kumar, official from SDM Office (PW14) who proved the extract of assessment register vide Ex.PW14/1 to Ex. PW14/4, Om Parkash Meter Reader who proved receipts Ex. PW15/1 to E PW15/A to Ex. PW 15/G. the plaintiffs in rebuttal
68. Murti Thakurji Shyam Dass, defendant the affairs of the temple were being managed by Mahant Mahant Ghan Shyam Dass. Marusi (tenant) or
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M-
In additional evidence, (civil suit No. 17 of 1987) a few tendered by the defendants which are as under;- Ex. D20- Statement of
dated
titled
Shyam Dass
Ex. D21-
Order dated 16.05.2002 in civil
suit titled Balram Dass vs.
Mahabir Dass
Ex. D22-
Compromise dated 16.05.2002 in
civil s
Mahabir Dass
Exs. D23 and D24.
Judgment and decree dated
22.04.2006
Exs. D25 and D26
Order dated 08.04.2005 and
23.12.2005 in civil suit titled
Sansar Devi vs.
Dass In rebuttal to additional evidence of the defendants, plaintiffs Kumar, official from SDM Office (PW14) who proved the extract of assessment register vide Ex.PW14/1 to Ex. PW14/4, Om Parkash Meter Reader who proved receipts Ex. PW15/1 to E PW15/A to Ex. PW 15/G. Copy of sale deed mark PXY the plaintiffs in rebuttal. Murti Thakurji is undisputed owner of suit property Shyam Dass, defendant was managing the affairs of temple and after his death, the affairs of the temple were being managed by Mahant Mahant Ghan Shyam Dass. The main question is whether the plaintiffs were (tenant) or Mujara Gair Marusi (tenant at will)
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -28- (civil suit No. 17 of 1987) a few more documents were -
Statement of Ghan Shyam Dass dated 13.8.1993 of in civil suit titled Rumal Kaur vs. Ghan Shyam Dass
Order dated 16.05.2002 in civil suit titled Balram Dass vs. Mahabir Dass Compromise dated 16.05.2002 in civil suit titled Balram Dass vs. Mahabir Dass
Judgment and decree dated 22.04.2006
Order dated 08.04.2005 and 23.12.2005 in civil suit titled Sansar Devi vs. Ghan Shyam Dass In rebuttal to additional evidence of the defendants, plaintiffs examined Rajesh Kumar, official from SDM Office (PW14) who proved the extract of assessment register vide Ex.PW14/1 to Ex. PW14/4, Om Parkash Meter- Reader who proved receipts Ex. PW15/1 to Ex. PW15/14 and bills Ex. Copy of sale deed mark PXY-1 is also tendered by owner of suit property. Earlier Mahant Ghan was managing the affairs of temple and after his death, the affairs of the temple were being managed by Mahant Mahabir Dass Chela The main question is whether the plaintiffs were (tenant at will) over the suit property more documents were Ghan Shyam Dass 13.8.1993 of in civil suit Ghan examined Rajesh Kumar, official from SDM Office (PW14) who proved the extract of - x. PW15/14 and bills Ex. 1 is also tendered by Ghan was managing the affairs of temple and after his death, Chela The main question is whether the plaintiffs were the suit property JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
and at the time of filing of civil suits, they were in possession over the suit property. The plaintiffs have proved lease PW11/3, PW9/1 and receipts Ex. PW7/B, Ex. PW3/6, Ex. PW3/7, and Mark A ( in civil suit No.17 of 1987/2007). Ex.PW3/1, the land was leased from 1965 to 1975 with stipulation that if rent for a period of 2 years continuously is not paid, tenant shall be liable to be evicted. Vide lease deed Ex. PW11/2 parties agreed that the lease period can be further extended shall be liable to handover the possession deed is extended and thereafter in favour of his wife was not indefinite plaintiff nowhere pleaded that she was in possession o Marusi or occupancy tenant rather she claimed that payment of an amount of Rs.1,000/ 17 of 1987, claimed agreement of the year 1979 allegedly signed by Shyam Dass, defendant agreement, there learned trial Court while deciding the appeal against ju 20.02.2007 of learned trial Court concluded that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property had been Mujara Gair Marusi
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- and at the time of filing of civil suits, they were in possession over the suit . The plaintiffs have proved lease agreement Exs.
The plaintiffs have proved lease agreement Exs. PW10/2, PW11/1 to , PW9/1 and receipts Ex. PW7/B, Ex. PW3/6, Ex. PW3/7, and Mark A ( in civil suit No.17 of 1987/2007). Ex.PW3/1, the land was leased from 1965 to 1975 with stipulation that if rent for a period of 2 years continuously is not paid, tenant shall be liable to be ide lease deed Ex. PW11/2, for a period from 1966 to 1981, the parties agreed that the lease period can be further extended shall be liable to handover the possession. Vide agreement Ex. PW11/3, lease extended from 1966 to 1986. Thus, the tenancy in favour of Jai Singh and thereafter in favour of his wife Rumal Kaur indefinite. In the copy of civil suit No.1080 of where pleaded that she was in possession o or occupancy tenant rather she claimed that payment of an amount of Rs.1,000/- per annum. The plainti claimed agreement of the year 1979 allegedly signed by defendant that suit property would not be vacated. I agreement, there was no reference of above noted 3 lease deeds learned trial Court in civil suit No.17 of 1987 and learned First Appellate Court while deciding the appeal against judgment of learned trial Court dated 20.02.2007 of learned trial Court rendered in concluded that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property had been Mujara Gair Marusi (tenant at will). , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -29- and at the time of filing of civil suits, they were in possession over the suit agreement Exs. PW10/2, PW11/1 to , PW9/1 and receipts Ex. PW7/B, Ex. PW3/6, Ex. PW3/7, Ex. PW3/8 and Mark A ( in civil suit No.17 of 1987/2007). Undisputedly, vide lease deed Ex.PW3/1, the land was leased from 1965 to 1975 with stipulation that if rent for a period of 2 years continuously is not paid, tenant shall be liable to be for a period from 1966 to 1981, the parties agreed that the lease period can be further extended otherwise the tenant ide agreement Ex. PW11/3, lease . Thus, the tenancy in favour of Jai Singh Rumal Kaur, was for a fixed period and . In the copy of civil suit No.1080 of 1985, Rumal Kaur, where pleaded that she was in possession over suit property as or occupancy tenant rather she claimed that the tenancy was on per annum.
The plaintiff in civil suit No. claimed agreement of the year 1979 allegedly signed by Ghan t property would not be vacated. In the said noted 3 lease deeds. Therefore, and learned First Appellate Court dgment of learned trial Court dated in the said civil suit correctly concluded that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property had been as and at the time of filing of civil suits, they were in possession over the suit agreement Exs. PW10/2, PW11/1 to Ex. PW3/8 , vide lease deed Ex.PW3/1, the land was leased from 1965 to 1975 with stipulation that if rent for a period of 2 years continuously is not paid, tenant shall be liable to be for a period from 1966 to 1981, the the tenant ide agreement Ex. PW11/3, lease . Thus, the tenancy in favour of Jai Singh , was for a fixed period and Rumal Kaur, suit property as the tenancy was on ff in civil suit No. Ghan n the said . Therefore, and learned First Appellate Court dgment of learned trial Court dated civil suit correctly as JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
69. The case of the plaintiffs is that over the suit property whereas, the defendant pleaded that delivered the possession of the suit property in favor of the defendants vide Rapat Roznamchas Niranjan Lal Patwari is examine Roznamchas vide Exs. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3. In civil suit No.17 of 1987 the defendants examined of his father Sure No.1080) in his statement before the Court also stated that not in possession over suit property it wa is in possession since 1981. The entries of and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981 delivery of possession by Gajinder Singh (DW4), Balbir son of Lala Ram (DW5) and Dass, defendant No.1080). Khasra Rumal Kaur remain in cultivating possession on some part of the land till 1981 and thereafter, in the column of possession, the defendant i.e. Thakurji is reflected in cultivating possession. 70.
The defendants had examined Niranjan Lal Patwari; DW3, who contents of Rapats Roznamachas and DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981 witnesses who were present on the spot i.e.
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- The case of the plaintiffs is that Rumal Kaur never relinquished the possession over the suit property whereas, the defendant pleaded that delivered the possession of the suit property in favor of the defendants vide Rapat Roznamchas Nos. 66,67 and 69 dated 22.10.1981. In both the civil suits Niranjan Lal Patwari is examined as DW3 who proved these vide Exs. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3. In civil suit No.17 of 1987 the defendants examined Sh. Sunil Yadav, DW4, who identified the sig Surender Singh Nambardar. No.1080) in his statement before the Court also stated that ssession over suit property it was being cultivated by Mandir. Mandir is in possession since 1981. The entries of Rapat Roznamchas and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981 delivery of possession by Rumal Kaur in favour of Mandir, Gajinder Singh (DW4), Balbir son of Lala Ram (DW5) and Dass, defendant (DW7) when they stepped into the witness box (in civil suit hasra Girdawari Ex. P2 (civil suit No.1080) also proved that remain in cultivating possession on some part of the land till 1981 and thereafter, in the column of possession, the defendant i.e. is reflected in cultivating possession. The defendants had examined Niranjan Lal Patwari; DW3, who Rapats Roznamachas No. 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981. The defendants had also examined other witnesses who were present on the spot i.e. Mr. Sunil Yadav,
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -30- never relinquished the possession over the suit property whereas, the defendant pleaded that Rumal Kaur delivered the possession of the suit property in favor of the defendants vide dated 22.10.1981. In both the civil suits d as DW3 who proved these Rapat vide Exs. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3. In civil suit No.17 of 1987 Sh.
Sunil Yadav, DW4, who identified the signatures DW8 Sunil Yadav, (civil suit No.1080) in his statement before the Court also stated that Rumal Kaur was s being cultivated by Mandir. Mandir Rapat Roznamchas Nos. 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981 regarding in favour of Mandir, are corroborated by Gajinder Singh (DW4), Balbir son of Lala Ram (DW5) and Ghan Shyam stepped into the witness box (in civil suit Ex. P2 (civil suit No.1080) also proved that remain in cultivating possession on some part of the land till Rabi 1981 and thereafter, in the column of possession, the defendant i.e. Murti
The defendants had examined Niranjan Lal Patwari; DW3, who proved the No. 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 . The defendants had also examined other Mr. Sunil Yadav, who identified never relinquished the possession Rumal Kaur delivered the possession of the suit property in favor of the defendants vide dated 22.10.1981. In both the civil suits Rapat vide Exs. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3. In civil suit No.17 of 1987 ures (civil suit s s being cultivated by Mandir. Mandir 66, 67 regarding are corroborated by Ghan Shyam stepped into the witness box (in civil suit Ex. P2 (civil suit No.1080) also proved that Rabi Murti proved the No. 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 . The defendants had also examined other ied JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
signature of his father Gurjinder Singh as DW4 and
71. Rapat Roznamchas Khasra No.6/23, 4 Kaur, widow of Jai Singh, Nihal Singh son of Dal Surender Singh Singh Chowkidar publically suffered statement possession in favour of Ram Saran Dass with their free consent and Mahant held cultivated Khasra No.6/23 Mahant. There is one civil suit pending in the Court of Sub Rewari and one injunction order dated 02.
operation and the same be considered as vacated and the writing sh submitted in the Court. Ram Swarup N by Rumal Kaur
72. Rapat No. 67 dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/2 pertaining to land bearing No.9/3, 4 kanal
73. The subject matter of rapat No.69 dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/3 pertaining to land khasra No.8/21 113 kanal 15 marla 10/3-7 is being cultivated by cultivated jointly by given to Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- e of his father Surender Singh Namba Gurjinder Singh as DW4 and Balbir as DW5. Rapat Roznamchas No. 66 dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/1 is pertaining to land No.6/23, 4 kanal 4 marla and it recitals proved that on that day widow of Jai Singh, Nihal Singh son of Dal Surender Singh Singh Nambardar, Ram Swarup Namba Chowkidar publically suffered statements possession in favour of Ghan Shyam Dass Chela Sh. Bhagw Ram Saran Dass with their free consent and Mahant held cultivated No.6/23 for Kharif 1983 and its Girdawari Mahant. There is one civil suit pending in the Court of Sub one injunction order dated 02.05.1981 is also issued which is in operation and the same be considered as vacated and the writing sh submitted in the Court. The rapat is signed by Nihal Singh, Bhikha Chowkidar, Nambardar and Surender Singh Rumal Kaur and endorsed by Niranjan Lal Patwari. Rapat No. 67 dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/2 pertaining to land bearing kanal 17 marla of land with similar recitals. The subject matter of rapat No.69 dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/3 pertaining to No.8/21-22, 9/7-8-9-10-11-12-13 marla out of which 4 Killas land bearing 7 is being cultivated by Rumal Kaur individually and remaining is being cultivated jointly by Rumal Kaur and Dharam Singh and its possession was Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant and this entry also bears recital that
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -31- ambardar as well as by examining No. 66 dated 22.10.1981 Ex.
DW3/1 is pertaining to land and it recitals proved that on that day Rumal widow of Jai Singh, Nihal Singh son of Dalip Singh in the presence of rdar, Ram Swarup Nambardar, Bhikha that they have relinquished Chela Sh. Bhagwan Dass Chela Ram Saran Dass with their free consent and Mahant held cultivated Bajra in Girdawari be sanctioned in favour of Mahant. There is one civil suit pending in the Court of Sub-Judge, Ist Class, 5.1981 is also issued which is in operation and the same be considered as vacated and the writing shall be The rapat is signed by Nihal Singh, Bhikha Chowkidar, Nambardar and thumb marked and endorsed by Niranjan Lal Patwari. Rapat No. 67 dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/2 pertaining to land bearing Khasra of land with similar recitals. The subject matter of rapat No.69 dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/3 pertaining to 13-14-17-18-19-20, 10/3-7 total out of which 4 Killas land bearing Khasra No.8/21-22, individually and remaining is being and Dharam Singh and its possession was and this entry also bears recital that xamining No. 66 dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/1 is pertaining to land Rumal ip Singh in the presence of rdar, Bhikha that they have relinquished an Dass Chela in be sanctioned in favour of Judge, Ist Class, 5.1981 is also issued which is in all be The rapat is signed by Nihal Singh, Bhikha Chowkidar, and thumb marked sra The subject matter of rapat No.69 dated 22.10.1981 Ex. DW3/3 pertaining to 7 total 22, individually and remaining is being and Dharam Singh and its possession was and this entry also bears recital that JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
from kharif 1981, Mahant in land bearing Kill entered in the name of Mahant. There is also another recital that except the land Khasra No. 8/21 the Court of Sub Judge, Ist Class, Rewari and injunction dated 02.
issued in the said suit and same be stood vacated and for this purpose, application shall be moved in the Court. 74. Entries in Rapat Roznamchas DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981 discharge of his official duties
75. These entries are public documents under Section 74 of Evidence Act. This Section reads as under: Section 74 of Indian Evidence Act
“Public Documents
documents : (1)
(2)
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- 1981, Mahant Ghan Shyam Dass had sown in land bearing Killa No.9/11-12 Gowar was sown and the entered in the name of Mahant. There is also another recital that except the No. 8/21-22, 10/3-7 there is a dispute regarding remaining land in the Court of Sub Judge, Ist Class, Rewari and injunction dated 02. issued in the said suit and same be stood vacated and for this purpose, application shall be moved in the Court. Rapat Roznamchas No. 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981 were made by DW3 discharge of his official duties. These entries are public documents under Section 74 of This Section reads as under:- Section 74 of Indian Evidence Act Public Documents-The following documents are public documents :- (1) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts (i) of the sovereign authority, (ii) of official bodies and tribunals, (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive,
[of any part of India or of the Commonwealth]
foreign country; Public records kept [in any State
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -32- had sown Gowar and Bajra and was sown and the Girdawari be entered in the name of Mahant. There is also another recital that except the there is a dispute regarding remaining land in the Court of Sub Judge, Ist Class, Rewari and injunction dated 02.05.1981 is issued in the said suit and same be stood vacated and for this purpose, 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex.
DW3/1, DW3/2 and made by DW3 Niranjan Singh Patwari in These entries are public documents under Section 74 of erstwhile the Indian
Section 74 of Indian Evidence Act The following documents are public or records of the acts – of the sovereign authority, and tribunals, and of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth] or, of a ublic records kept [in any State] of private documents.” and be entered in the name of Mahant. There is also another recital that except the there is a dispute regarding remaining land in 5.1981 is issued in the said suit and same be stood vacated and for this purpose, 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and Niranjan Singh Patwari in the Indian The following documents are public of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of a JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
76. Section 74 (1) corresponding to section 74 of under:-
“Section 74. of BSA (1) (a) documents (b) public records kept in any State or Uni documents. (2) All other documents except the documents referred to in sub section (1) are private
77. The above referred forming the acts or records of acts of the state and transactions which such functionaries are required to enter in books/registers in the course of their public duties personal knowledge and observations as such, functionaries are public documents. 78. Section 77 of the documents. This section reads as under;
“Section production of
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- 74 (1) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam corresponding to section 74 of erstwhile Indian Evidence Act which reads as Section 74. of BSA- Public and private documents (1) The following documents are public documents: (a) documents forming the acts, or records of the acts (i) of the sovereign authority; (ii) of official bodies and tribunals; and (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive of India or of a foreign country; (b) public records kept in any State or Uni documents.
(2) All other documents except the documents referred to in sub section (1) are private.” The above referred provisions make it abundantly clear that the documents forming the acts or records of acts of the state and which such functionaries are required to enter in books/registers in the course of their public duties, which occur within the circle of their own personal knowledge and observations as such, functionaries are public Section 77 of the erstwhile Indian Evidence Act provides for proof of public documents. This section reads as under;- Section 77 of Indian Evidence Act production of certified copies--
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -33- ya Adhiniyam, 2023 (for short-BSA) is Indian Evidence Act which reads as Public and private documents.
The following documents are public documents:- forming the acts, or records of the acts- (i) of the sovereign authority; (ii) of official bodies and tribunals; and (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive of India or of a foreign country; (b) public records kept in any State or Union territory of private (2) All other documents except the documents referred to in sub- provisions make it abundantly clear that the documents forming the acts or records of acts of the state and public functionaries and which such functionaries are required to enter in books/registers in which occur within the circle of their own personal knowledge and observations as such, functionaries are public Indian Evidence Act provides for proof of public f Indian Evidence Act-Proof of documents by -Such certified copies may be is Indian Evidence Act which reads as (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive of on territory of private - provisions make it abundantly clear that the documents ionaries and which such functionaries are required to enter in books/registers in which occur within the circle of their own personal knowledge and observations as such, functionaries are public Indian Evidence Act provides for proof of public Proof of documents by Such certified copies may be JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or of the public documents of which they purport to be copies. 79. Section 76 of BSA Act, which reads as under;
“Section 76 o certified copies the contents of the public documents or documents of which they purport to be copies
80. It is clear from the reading of aforesaid provision that the public document, which any person has right to inspect, has given a certified copy on demand, such certified copy may be produced contents of public documents or its parts. Meaning thereby, a copy of ‘Rapat Roznamchas in evidence in view of aforesaid provisions. 81. In these cases, the DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981 made by DW3 Patwari are duly proved in his own statement on oath. This Court in Punjab vs. Bakshis
“ …..
it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the entry made in the reason to disbelieve the Patwari also in this regard. The entry was made in the original Raznamcha by an official concerned in the course of performance of his official duties and is admissible under Section 35 o
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or of the public documents of which they purport to be copies. BSA is corresponding to section 77 of which reads as under;- Section 76 of BSA-Proof of documents by production of certified copies-Such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or documents of which they purport to be copies It is clear from the reading of aforesaid provision that the public document, which any person has right to inspect, has given a certified copy on demand, such certified copy may be produced contents of public documents or its parts. Meaning thereby, a Rapat Roznamchas’ as maintained by the Patwari, is in evidence in view of aforesaid provisions. In these cases, the entries in Rapat Roznamchas DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981 made by DW3 Patwari are duly proved in his own statement on oath. This Court in Punjab vs. Bakshish Singh, 2003 (2) Shim L.J. 1540
“ ….. it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the entry made in the Roznamcha of the Patwari is not genuine. There is no reason to disbelieve the Patwari also in this regard. The entry was made in the original Raznamcha by an official concerned in the course of performance of his official duties and is admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The learned lower
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -34- produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies.” is corresponding to section 77 of erstwhile Indian Evidence Proof of documents by production of Such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies”. It is clear from the reading of aforesaid provision that where the custodian of the public document, which any person has right to inspect, has given a certified copy on demand, such certified copy may be produced as proof of the contents of public documents or its parts. Meaning thereby, a duly certified as maintained by the Patwari, is per se admissible Rapat Roznamchas No. 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981 made by DW3 Niranjan Singh Patwari are duly proved in his own statement on oath. This Court in State of Singh, 2003 (2) Shim L.J. 1540 observed that ;
“ ….. it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the entry of the Patwari is not genuine. There is no reason to disbelieve the Patwari also in this regard. The entry was made in the original Raznamcha by an official concerned in the course of performance of his official duties and is admissible f the Indian Evidence Act. The learned lower parts Indian Evidence Proof of documents by production of Such certified copies may be produced in proof of parts of the public where the custodian of the public document, which any person has right to inspect, has given a proof of the duly certified admissible 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. Niranjan Singh State of
“ ….. it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the entry of the Patwari is not genuine.
There is no reason to disbelieve the Patwari also in this regard. The entry was made in the original Raznamcha by an official concerned in the course of performance of his official duties and is admissible f the Indian Evidence Act. The learned lower JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
Appellate Court had entered into a detailed discussion in this regard and I have no reason to disagree with the same. Hence, it is hardly open to the State to call its records as of doubtful character.”
82. These Rapat Roznamchas DW3/3 dated 22.10.1981 were recorded by DW3 discharge of his official duties and a presumption of correctness is attached to the same under Section 114 of the India the person who asserts to the contrary to rebut the same by leading evidence. Vishwa Vijai Bharti vs Fakhrul Hasan & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 642 Apex Court observed that the presumption of truth attached to revenue record can be rebutted if such entries were made fraudulently or surreptitiously. The presumption of truth attached to revenue record also stood rebutted if such entries have no prescribed procedure
83. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the argued that Bhikha Chowkidar is not examined and Nihal Singh was not alive at that time, however, death certificate of Niha Court and it is for the plaintiffs to rebut the entries of were duty bound to examine Bhikha Chowkidar in the Court. 84. To rebut the contents of over the part of the suit property, Dharam Singh possession, learned counsel for the plaintiffs ha
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- Appellate Court had entered into a detailed discussion in this regard and I have no reason to disagree with the same. Hence, it is hardly open to the State to call its records as of doubtful character.” Rapat Roznamchas No. 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex.
DW3/1, DW3/2 and 22.10.1981 were recorded by DW3 discharge of his official duties and a presumption of correctness is attached to the same under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. The burden lies upon the person who asserts to the contrary to rebut the same by leading evidence. Vishwa Vijai Bharti vs Fakhrul Hasan & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 642 Apex Court observed that the presumption of truth attached to revenue record can be rebutted if such entries were made fraudulently or surreptitiously. The presumption of truth attached to revenue record also stood rebutted if such entries have not been made by following the prescribed procedure. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the argued that Bhikha Chowkidar is not examined and Nihal Singh was not alive at that time, however, death certificate of Nihal Singh, was Court and it is for the plaintiffs to rebut the entries of were duty bound to examine Bhikha Chowkidar in the Court. the contents of Rapat Roznamchas over the part of the suit property, Dharam Singh possession, learned counsel for the plaintiffs ha
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -35- Appellate Court had entered into a detailed discussion in this regard and I have no reason to disagree with the same. Hence, it is hardly open to the State to call its records as of doubtful No. 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and 22.10.1981 were recorded by DW3 Niranjan Singh Patwari in discharge of his official duties and a presumption of correctness is attached to n Evidence Act. The burden lies upon the person who asserts to the contrary to rebut the same by leading evidence. In Vishwa Vijai Bharti vs Fakhrul Hasan & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 642, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the presumption of truth attached to revenue record can be rebutted if such entries were made fraudulently or surreptitiously.
The presumption of truth attached to revenue record also t been made by following the During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants argued that Bhikha Chowkidar is not examined and Nihal Singh was not alive l Singh, was not produced in the Court and it is for the plaintiffs to rebut the entries of Rapat Roznamchas and were duty bound to examine Bhikha Chowkidar in the Court. Ex. DW3/3 which reflects that over the part of the suit property, Dharam Singh along with Rumal Kaur was in possession, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has drawn attention of this Court Appellate Court had entered into a detailed discussion in this regard and I have no reason to disagree with the same. Hence, it is hardly open to the State to call its records as of doubtful No. 66, 67 and 69 vide Ex. DW3/1, DW3/2 and Niranjan Singh Patwari in discharge of his official duties and a presumption of correctness is attached to n Evidence Act. The burden lies upon In Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the presumption of truth attached to revenue record can be rebutted if such entries were made fraudulently or surreptitiously. The presumption of truth attached to revenue record also t been made by following the plaintiffs/appellants argued that Bhikha Chowkidar is not examined and Nihal Singh was not alive produced in the and Ex. DW3/3 which reflects that was in drawn attention of this Court JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
towards judgment dated 26.08.1988 civil suit No. 367 of 1981 instituted on 30.03.1981, civil suit No.17 of 1987) filed by Singh son of Sultan Singh interfering in her possession over the suit property which is also subject matter of the present appeals restraining the defendants from interfering the peaceful possession of the Rumal Kaur, plaintiff. against judgment dated 26.08.1988 Ex. PN. against the judgment dated 26.08.1988 Ex. PN and he was impleaded as proforma respondent (respondent No.
judgment Ex. PN Rumal Kaur and Kishan Singh suffered statement that out of the disputed property, Khasra given to him and that he is in possession of disputed land i.e. 10/1, (8 be given to Krishana Bala; legal representative and daughter of and she is in possession of those daughter of Rumal Kaur appeal was dismissed as compromised and decree was ordered to be prepared.
85. The findings of the learned trial Court in on 30.03.1981 and decided on reflected in order District Judge, Rewari in
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- towards judgment dated 26.08.1988 passed by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Rewari in civil suit No. 367 of 1981 instituted on 30.03.1981, civil suit No.17 of 1987) filed by Rumal Kaur Singh son of Sultan Singh for permanent injunction restrainin interfering in her possession over the suit property which is also subject matter of the present appeals. The said suit had been decreed in favour of restraining the defendants from interfering the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Only Kishan Singh son of Sultan Singh filed appeal against judgment dated 26.08.1988 Ex. PN. Dharam Singh did not file appeal against the judgment dated 26.08.1988 Ex. PN and he was impleaded as orma respondent (respondent No.5). During the
judgment Ex. PN, Kishan Singh entered into compromise with legal heirs of and Kishan Singh suffered statement that out of the disputed asra No.13/4 (5 kanal 10 marla), 5/1 (6 and that he is in possession of Kha i.e. 10/1, (8 kanal), 9/24 (3 kanal be given to Krishana Bala; legal representative and daughter of and she is in possession of those Khasra numbers. Similarly Krishana Bala Rumal Kaur, also suffered statement regarding compromise appeal was dismissed as compromised and decree was ordered to be prepared. The findings of the learned trial Court in civil suit No. 367 of 1981 instituted on 30.03.1981 and decided on 26.8.1988 Ex. PN reflected in order Ex. PL on 20.08.1991 of the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rewari in civil appeal No.95 of 1988
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -36- passed by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Rewari in civil suit No. 367 of 1981 instituted on 30.03.1981, Ex. PN (as exhibited in Rumal Kaur against Dharam Singh, Kishan for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in her possession over the suit property which is also subject matter he said suit had been decreed in favour of Rumal Kaur restraining the defendants from interfering the peaceful possession of the Only Kishan Singh son of Sultan Singh filed appeal Dharam Singh did not file appeal against the judgment dated 26.08.1988 Ex. PN and he was impleaded as g the pendency of appeal against , Kishan Singh entered into compromise with legal heirs of and Kishan Singh suffered statement that out of the disputed , 5/1 (6 kanal 16 marla) had been Khasra numbers 10/1, remaining kanal 16 marla) and 9/25 (3 kanal) be given to Krishana Bala; legal representative and daughter of Rumal Kaur numbers. Similarly Krishana Bala also suffered statement regarding compromise and appeal was dismissed as compromised and decree was ordered to be prepared. civil suit No. 367 of 1981 instituted 26.8.1988 Ex. PN and compromise in appeal as of the Court of learned Additional civil appeal No.95 of 1988, cannot affect the rights of passed by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Rewari in Ex.
PN (as exhibited in against Dharam Singh, Kishan g them from interfering in her possession over the suit property which is also subject matter Rumal Kaur restraining the defendants from interfering the peaceful possession of the Only Kishan Singh son of Sultan Singh filed appeal Dharam Singh did not file appeal against the judgment dated 26.08.1988 Ex. PN and he was impleaded as against , Kishan Singh entered into compromise with legal heirs of and Kishan Singh suffered statement that out of the disputed ) had been remaining ) Rumal Kaur numbers. Similarly Krishana Bala and civil suit No. 367 of 1981 instituted in appeal as of the Court of learned Additional cannot affect the rights of JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
defendants because the and not in rem. to this civil suit to contest the claim of the dated 26.8.1988 considered by the learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court to determine the possession of plaintiff or her legal heirs over suit property in civil suit No.17 of 1987. 86.
Learned counsel towards compromise effected on 24. in civil suit No. 367 of 1981 instituted on 30.03.1981 in civil suit No.17 of 1987 24.1.1979 reveals that ejectment against and he accepts in possession over the suit property and he shall not file any application for ejectment and shall get her name entered in the revenue record undisputed that after 24. Ghan Shyam Dass Rumal Kaur as tenant instead of tenant at will. mark A15 was never acted upon or implemented Kaur on her own will relinquished t with Dharam Singh, therefore, learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court had rightly not considered
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- because the findings in said suit No. . Murti Thakurji or its Mahant Ghan Shyam Dass was not party to this civil suit and above numbered appeal and they never go to contest the claim of the Rumal Kaur, plaintiff dated 26.8.1988 Ex. PN and order dated 20.08.1991 considered by the learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court to determine the possession of plaintiff or her legal heirs over suit property in civil suit No.17 of 1987.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has also drawn attentio towards compromise effected on 24.01.1979, by in civil suit No. 367 of 1981 instituted on 30.03.1981 civil suit No.17 of 1987). The recitals of this agreement/compromise dated 24.1.1979 reveals that Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant ejectment against Rumal Kaur in the Court of SDO/Collector, Ist Class, Rewari and he accepts Rumal Kaur as tenant and agreed that in possession over the suit property and he shall not file any application for and shall get her name entered in the revenue record undisputed that after 24.01.1979, no action was taken either by Ghan Shyam Dass for correction of revenue record for entering the name of as tenant instead of tenant at will. was never acted upon or implemented on her own will relinquished the possession of the suit property with Dharam Singh, therefore, learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court had rightly not considered agreement/compromise
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -37- No. 367 of 1981 are in personam or its Mahant Ghan Shyam Dass was not party and they never got the opportunity Rumal Kaur, plaintiff or her legal heirs. Judgment 20.08.1991 Ex.PL were rightly not considered by the learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court to determine the possession of plaintiff or her legal heirs over suit property in as also drawn attention of this Court 1.1979, by Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant in civil suit No. 367 of 1981 instituted on 30.03.1981 mark A15 (as exhibited ). The recitals of this agreement/compromise dated Ghan Shyam Dass, defendanthad filed a suit for in the Court of SDO/Collector, Ist Class, Rewari as tenant and agreed that Rumal Kaur shall remain in possession over the suit property and he shall not file any application for and shall get her name entered in the revenue record as tenant. It is 1.1979, no action was taken either by Rumal Kaur or for correction of revenue record for entering the name of as tenant instead of tenant at will. This proved that agreement was never acted upon or implemented. On the other hand, Rumal he possession of the suit property along with Dharam Singh, therefore, learned trial Court and learned First Appellate agreement/compromise mark A15 deciding personam or its Mahant Ghan Shyam Dass was not party t the opportunity or her legal heirs.
Judgment rightly not considered by the learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court to determine the possession of plaintiff or her legal heirs over suit property in n of this Court Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant (as exhibited ). The recitals of this agreement/compromise dated had filed a suit for in the Court of SDO/Collector, Ist Class, Rewari shall remain in possession over the suit property and he shall not file any application for as tenant. It is or for correction of revenue record for entering the name of agreement Rumal along with Dharam Singh, therefore, learned trial Court and learned First Appellate ng JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
civil suit No.17 of 1987 Court. 87.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs are also contended that no possession was delivered after getting thumb impression of Roznamchas. It is further submitted that over this property subsequent to defendant charged rent receipts Ex. PW 1985) /Ex. PX/2 and receipt Ex. PW3/5 and PW8/2 and that signatures of Shyam Dass, defendant Som Nath Aggarwal, Handwriting and Finger Print Court as well as by PW11 Krishana Bala, PW9 Ra
88. It is important to note that PW4 Som Nath Aggarwal, Handwriting and Finge Print Expert, PW9 Ram Swarup Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant these receipts. because he had filed suit for recovery of money aga defendant that has since been dismissed. PW10 Dalip Singh and his brother Jai Dayal also filed civil suit pertaining to 10 kil Thakurji against Ghan Shyam Dass on the basis of agreement to sell Although, PW11 Krishana Bala daughter of Rumal Kaur, in her statement before the Court stated that the receipts were pleaded in the plaint. contents of abovenoted receipts were
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- civil suit No.17 of 1987 and the appeal against the
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs are also contended that no possession was delivered after getting thumb impression of Rumal Kaur It is further submitted that Rumal Kaur over this property subsequent to 22.10.1981 because charged rent at the rate of an amount of Rs.800 per annum vide PW-9/B and Ex. PW-9/E (as exhibited in civil suit No.1080 of PX/2 and receipt Ex. PW3/5 and PW8/2 and that signatures of Shyam Dass, defendant on these receipts are duly proved on record by Som Nath Aggarwal, Handwriting and Finger Print as well as by PW11 Krishana Bala, PW9 Ra It is important to note that PW4 Som Nath Aggarwal, Handwriting and Finge Print Expert, PW9 Ram Swarup only stated about signing of these receipts by Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant but did not state anything about the contents of PW2 Rohtash had reason to depose against the defendants because he had filed suit for recovery of money aga that has since been dismissed. PW10 Dalip Singh and his brother Jai also filed civil suit pertaining to 10 kil Thakurji against Ghan Shyam Dass on the basis of agreement to sell Although, PW11 Krishana Bala daughter of Rumal Kaur, in her statement before the Court stated that the receipts were scribed pleaded in the plaint. No other witness except Krishana Bala, deposed that contents of abovenoted receipts were scribed by
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -38- and the appeal against the judgment of learned trial
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs are also contended that no possession was Rumal Kaur on aforesaid Rapat Rumal Kaur remained in possession 22.10.1981 because Ghan Shyam Dass, of an amount of Rs.800 per annum vide rent (as exhibited in civil suit No.1080 of PX/2 and receipt Ex. PW3/5 and PW8/2 and that signatures of Ghan on these receipts are duly proved on record by PW4 Som Nath Aggarwal, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert, examined in the as well as by PW11 Krishana Bala, PW9 Ram Swarup. It is important to note that PW4 Som Nath Aggarwal, Handwriting and Finger only stated about signing of these receipts by but did not state anything about the contents of PW2 Rohtash had reason to depose against the defendants because he had filed suit for recovery of money against Ghan Shyam Dass, that has since been dismissed. PW10 Dalip Singh and his brother Jai also filed civil suit pertaining to 10 killas of land of temple/Murti Thakurji against Ghan Shyam Dass on the basis of agreement to sell. Although, PW11 Krishana Bala daughter of Rumal Kaur, in her statement scribed by her but this fact is not other witness except Krishana Bala, deposed that scribed by her, whereas PW9 Ram
judgment of learned trial
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs are also contended that no possession was Rapat remained in possession Ghan Shyam Dass, rent (as exhibited in civil suit No.1080 of Ghan PW4 Expert, examined in the r only stated about signing of these receipts by but did not state anything about the contents of PW2 Rohtash had reason to depose against the defendants Ghan Shyam Dass, that has since been dismissed. PW10 Dalip Singh and his brother Jai las of land of temple/Murti . Although, PW11 Krishana Bala daughter of Rumal Kaur, in her statement is not other witness except Krishana Bala, deposed that whereas PW9 Ram JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
Swarup expressed ignorance who scribed these receipts. receipts PW-9/B Ram Swarup would have been aware of the fact these receipts were scribed as he is claiming to be attesting witness of these receipts. Had Receipt Ex. Krishana Bala it would have been bearing her signatures the signatures of its scribe are not appended on the receipt Ex. PW-9/E and this falsifies the case of the plaintiffs that after taking payment of Rs.800/- per annum receipts Ex. PW Simply exhibiting a document on record is not enough to discharge the onus of its execution. Similarity of signatures on the the onus of proof of execution of by Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant to its due execution, execution requires signing with intent to accept and give effect to the contents of documents. A signature on blank paper cannot be treated as admission of execution of receipts. The plaintiffs were require prove that Ghan Shyam Dass, defen written and completed and after fully understanding and admitting the contents of the same. None of the witnesses had proved the contents of these receipts. None of the witnes receipts after admitting and understanding the contents of the same. The burden of proof of a document is on the party who wants to get relief in a suit. Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- Swarup expressed ignorance who scribed these receipts. 9/B and PW-9/E been scribed by PW11 Krishana Bala and would have been aware of the fact were scribed as he is claiming to be attesting witness of these Receipt Ex.
PW-9/E dated 07.0 Krishana Bala it would have been bearing her signatures the signatures of its scribe are not appended on the receipt Ex. and this falsifies the case of the plaintiffs that after taking payment of r annum as rent, Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant PW-9/B dated 22.03.1982 and Ex. Simply exhibiting a document on record is not enough to discharge the onus of its execution. Similarity of signatures on the receipts also does not the onus of proof of execution of these receipts Ex. Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant. Mere signing of the receipts do execution, execution requires signing with intent to accept and give effect to the contents of documents. A signature on blank paper cannot be treated as admission of execution of receipts. The plaintiffs were require Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant signed on receipts after these were written and completed and after fully understanding and admitting the contents of the same. None of the witnesses had proved the contents of these receipts. None of the witnesses stated that Ghan Shyam Dass, defenda receipts after admitting and understanding the contents of the same. The burden of proof of a document is on the party who wants to get relief in a suit. Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant specifically alleged in his written statement
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -39- Swarup expressed ignorance who scribed these receipts. Thus, had these ribed by PW11 Krishana Bala and PW9 would have been aware of the fact of when, where, and by whom were scribed as he is claiming to be attesting witness of these 07.1983 been scribed by PW11 Krishana Bala it would have been bearing her signatures as scribed. However, the signatures of its scribe are not appended on the receipt Ex. PW-9/B and Ex. and this falsifies the case of the plaintiffs that after taking payment of Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant, signed on these dated 22.03.1982 and Ex. PW-9/E dated 07.07.1983.
Simply exhibiting a document on record is not enough to discharge the onus of receipts also does not discharge these receipts Ex. PW-9/B and Ex. PW-9/E signing of the receipts do not amount execution, execution requires signing with intent to accept and give effect to the contents of documents. A signature on blank paper cannot be treated as admission of execution of receipts. The plaintiffs were required to signed on receipts after these were written and completed and after fully understanding and admitting the contents of the same. None of the witnesses had proved the contents of these receipts. Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant signed on the receipts after admitting and understanding the contents of the same. The burden of proof of a document is on the party who wants to get relief in a suit. specifically alleged in his written statement as se PW9 when, where, and by whom were scribed as he is claiming to be attesting witness of these PW11 . However, and Ex. and this falsifies the case of the plaintiffs that after taking payment of , signed on these
7.1983. Simply exhibiting a document on record is not enough to discharge the onus of discharge 9/E not amount execution, execution requires signing with intent to accept and give effect to the contents of documents. A signature on blank paper cannot be d to signed on receipts after these were written and completed and after fully understanding and admitting the contents of the same. None of the witnesses had proved the contents of these receipts. signed on the receipts after admitting and understanding the contents of the same. The burden of proof of a document is on the party who wants to get relief in a suit. as JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
well as testimony in civil suit No. 1080/1985 under threat on blank paper when he was forcibly taken to village Bhind, where uncle of Rohtash (PW2) was posted as Jailor. cross examination admitted that as a Jailor at village Bhin been going to village Bhind.
Rohtash PW2 also stated that defendant remained untraceable in the imperative for the plaintiffs to prove the contents of the receipts which had not been done by them and the learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court in both the civil suits and appeals rightly held prove payment of rent to the plaintiffs relinquished possession over the suit property on 22.10.1981. 89. It is also case of the plaintiffs that Police complaint was filed regarding obtaining thumb Police complaint is brought on record. her thumb impressions were obtained in the entries of the Ex. DW3/1 to Ex.DW3/3. She has not specifically pleaded which her thumb impressions were obtained i.e. whether any fact was misrepresented to her or it was by force or coercion. pleaded that she was ignorant, rustic, ways of the world. stated that Rumal Kaur was about 55 categorically stated that s that Nihal Singh was ali
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- estimony in civil suit No. 1080/1985 that his signatures were obtained under threat on blank paper when he was forcibly taken to village Bhind, where uncle of Rohtash (PW2) was posted as Jailor. cross examination admitted that Sanwat Singh is his brother and he was posted as a Jailor at village Bhind. Another fact admitted by him is that defendant had been going to village Bhind. Rohtash PW2 also stated that remained untraceable in the year 1981 imperative for the plaintiffs to prove the contents of the receipts which had not been done by them and the learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court in both the civil suits and appeals rightly held rove payment of rent to Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant the plaintiffs relinquished possession over the suit property on 22.10.1981. It is also case of the plaintiffs that Police complaint was filed regarding obtaining thumb impressions of Rumal Kaur Police complaint is brought on record.
Rumal Kaur in the plaint pleaded that her thumb impressions were obtained in the entries of the Ex. DW3/1 to Ex.DW3/3. She has not specifically pleaded her thumb impressions were obtained i.e. whether any fact was misrepresented to her or it was by force or coercion. pleaded that she was ignorant, rustic, pardanasheen ways of the world. Niranjan Lal Patwari DW3 during the cross examination stated that Rumal Kaur was about 55-60 years of age and he knows her. categorically stated that she was in sound disposing mind. He is very that Nihal Singh was alive on 22.10.1981 and signed on
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -40- that his signatures were obtained under threat on blank paper when he was forcibly taken to village Bhind, where uncle of Rohtash (PW2) was posted as Jailor. PW9 Ram Swarup during Singh is his brother and he was posted d. Another fact admitted by him is that defendant had been going to village Bhind. Rohtash PW2 also stated that Ghan Shyam Dass, year 1981-83. In such a situation it was imperative for the plaintiffs to prove the contents of the receipts which had not been done by them and the learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court in both the civil suits and appeals rightly held that plaintiffs failed to Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant after Kharif 1981 when the plaintiffs relinquished possession over the suit property on 22.10.1981. It is also case of the plaintiffs that Police complaint was filed regarding fraudulently, however, no such Rumal Kaur in the plaint pleaded that her thumb impressions were obtained in the entries of the Rapat Roznamchas Ex. DW3/1 to Ex.DW3/3. She has not specifically pleaded the pretext under her thumb impressions were obtained i.e. whether any fact was misrepresented to her or it was by force or coercion. Rumal Kaur had not ardanasheen lady, unfamiliar with the Niranjan Lal Patwari DW3 during the cross examination 60 years of age and he knows her. He he was in sound disposing mind.
He is very specific ve on 22.10.1981 and signed on Rapat Roznamchas that his signatures were obtained under threat on blank paper when he was forcibly taken to village Bhind, PW9 Ram Swarup during Singh is his brother and he was posted d. Another fact admitted by him is that defendant had Ghan Shyam Dass, situation it was imperative for the plaintiffs to prove the contents of the receipts which had not been done by them and the learned trial Court and learned First Appellate that plaintiffs failed to 1981 when It is also case of the plaintiffs that Police complaint was filed regarding fraudulently, however, no such Rumal Kaur in the plaint pleaded that Rapat Roznamchas under her thumb impressions were obtained i.e. whether any fact was Rumal Kaur had not lady, unfamiliar with the Niranjan Lal Patwari DW3 during the cross examination He specific Rapat Roznamchas JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
No.66. Though illiterate, when she thumb marking on Kaur had filed a civil suit agai thumb marking
22.10.1981. She nowhere pleaded that she did not understand the contents of Rapat Roznamchas learned trial Court rightly held that on 22.10.1981, Rumal Kaur relinquished possession of suit p was put to DW3 Niranjan Lal Patwari that he collided with the defendants. DW3 Niranjan Lal Patwari had no re Rumal Kaur on the in the Rapat Roznamchas any specific motive is attributed to record, the entries cannot be disputed as presumption of truth is attached to these entries which the plaintiffs failed to rebut. 90. The plaintiffs alleged themselves to be occupancy tenants.
The term
“occupancy tenant” is defined in Sectio under:-
Section 2
xxx (f) : ‘Occupancy Tena’ commencement of this Act, is recorded as an occupancy tenant in the revenue records and includes a tenant who, after such commencement, obtains a right of occupancy in respect of the land held by him whether
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- Though illiterate, Rumal Kaur was not thumb marking on Rapat Roznamchas had filed a civil suit against Dharam Singh on 30.03.1981 i.e. before thumb marking entries of Rapat Roznamchas She nowhere pleaded that she did not understand the contents of Rapat Roznamchas when her thumb impressions were obtained. Therefore, learned trial Court rightly held that on 22.10.1981, Rumal Kaur possession of suit property in favour of defendants. was put to DW3 Niranjan Lal Patwari that he collided with the defendants. DW3 Niranjan Lal Patwari had no reason to obtain the thumb impressions of Rumal Kaur on these Rapat Roznamchas in the Panchayat. By making entries Rapat Roznamchas, he acted in discharge of his official duties. Unless any specific motive is attributed to DW3 Niranjan Lal Patwari record, the entries cannot be disputed as presumption of truth is attached to these entries which the plaintiffs failed to rebut. The plaintiffs alleged themselves to be occupancy tenants. The term
“occupancy tenant” is defined in Section 2 (f) of the Act, 1952 which reads as Section 2: Definitions ‘Occupancy Tena’means a tenant who, immediately before the commencement of this Act, is recorded as an occupancy tenant in the revenue records and includes a tenant who, after such commencement, obtains a right of occupancy in respect of the land held by him whether
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -41- not pardanasheen lady at the time Rapat Roznamchas No.66, 67 and 69. Rumal nst Dharam Singh on 30.03.1981 i.e. before Rapat Roznamchas No. 66, 67 and 69 dated She nowhere pleaded that she did not understand the contents of when her thumb impressions were obtained. Therefore, learned trial Court rightly held that on 22.10.1981, Rumal Kaur had roperty in favour of defendants.
No suggestion was put to DW3 Niranjan Lal Patwari that he collided with the defendants. ason to obtain the thumb impressions of in the Panchayat. By making entries , he acted in discharge of his official duties. Unless DW3 Niranjan Lal Patwari or proved on record, the entries cannot be disputed as presumption of truth is attached to these entries which the plaintiffs failed to rebut. The plaintiffs alleged themselves to be occupancy tenants. The term n 2 (f) of the Act, 1952 which reads as means a tenant who, immediately before the commencement of this Act, is recorded as an occupancy tenant in the revenue records and includes a tenant who, after such commencement, obtains a right of occupancy in respect of the land held by him whether at the time Rumal nst Dharam Singh on 30.03.1981 i.e. before No. 66, 67 and 69 dated She nowhere pleaded that she did not understand the contents of when her thumb impressions were obtained. Therefore, had No suggestion was put to DW3 Niranjan Lal Patwari that he collided with the defendants. ason to obtain the thumb impressions of in the Panchayat. By making entries , he acted in discharge of his official duties. Unless or proved on record, the entries cannot be disputed as presumption of truth is attached to The plaintiffs alleged themselves to be occupancy tenants. The term n 2 (f) of the Act, 1952 which reads as means a tenant who, immediately before the commencement of this Act, is recorded as an occupancy tenant in the revenue records and includes a tenant who, after such commencement, obtains a right of occupancy in respect of the land held by him whether JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
by agreement with the landlord or through a court of competent jurisdiction or otherwise, and includes also the predecessors and successors in interest of an occupancy tenant. 91.
91. It is the case of the years which had been undisputed that in a revenue record i.e. in the possession of plaintiff Singh was tenant at will. Plaintiffs never approached revenue Court for changing the nature of their possession from tenant at will to occupancy tenant. 92. Under Section 9 merely lapse of
“Section 9 of The Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 to be acquired by mere lapse of time. occupancy by mere lapse of time
93. Moreover, in order to claim ownership mentioned in Section 5 of the Act, 1887 and Section 3 of the Act, 1952, has to be fulfilled. These sections read as under:
“ Section 5 of the Act, 1887 A tenant- (a) who at the generations in the male line of descent through a grandfather or grand occupying land paying no rent therefore beyond the amount of the
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- reement with the landlord or through a court of competent jurisdiction or otherwise, and includes also the predecessors and successors in interest of an occupancy tenant. of the plaintiffs that initial tenancy had been further extended vide different lease agreements. undisputed that in a revenue record i.e. in jamabandis the possession of plaintiff, Rumal Kaur and before tenant at will. Plaintiffs never approached revenue Court for changing the nature of their possession from tenant at will to occupancy tenant. Under Section 9 of the Act, 1887, tenant cannot acquire right to occupancy by merely lapse of time. This section reads as under: Section 9 of The Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 to be acquired by mere lapse of time.– No tenant shall acquire a right of occupancy by mere lapse of time.” n order to claim ownership being occupancy tenant, the criteria mentioned in Section 5 of the Act, 1887 and Section 3 of the Act, 1952, has to be fulfilled.
These sections read as under:- Section 5 of the Act, 1887 :-Tenants having right of occupancy - who at the commencement of this Act has for more than two generations in the male line of descent through a grandfather or grand-uncle and for a period of not less than twenty years, been occupying land paying no rent therefore beyond the amount of the
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -42- reement with the landlord or through a court of competent jurisdiction or otherwise, and includes also the predecessors and successors in interest of an occupancy tenant.” initial tenancy was for a fixed term of 20 further extended vide different lease agreements. It is jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris, and before her, that of her husband Jai tenant at will. Plaintiffs never approached revenue Court for changing the nature of their possession from tenant at will to occupancy tenant. tenant cannot acquire right to occupancy by This section reads as under:- Section 9 of The Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887:-Right of occupancy not No tenant shall acquire a right of being occupancy tenant, the criteria mentioned in Section 5 of the Act, 1887 and Section 3 of the Act, 1952, has to Tenants having right of occupancy - (1) commencement of this Act has for more than two generations in the male line of descent through a grandfather or uncle and for a period of not less than twenty years, been occupying land paying no rent therefore beyond the amount of the reement with the landlord or through a court of competent jurisdiction or otherwise, and includes also the predecessors and for a fixed term of 20 It is , Jai tenant at will.
Plaintiffs never approached revenue Court for
tenant cannot acquire right to occupancy by Right of occupancy not No tenant shall acquire a right of being occupancy tenant, the criteria mentioned in Section 5 of the Act, 1887 and Section 3 of the Act, 1952, has to (1) commencement of this Act has for more than two generations in the male line of descent through a grandfather or uncle and for a period of not less than twenty years, been occupying land paying no rent therefore beyond the amount of the JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
land cha (b) xxx (c) xxx (d) xxx has a right of occupancy in the land so belonging to the class specified in the clause (c), the landlord tenant was settled on land previously cleared and brought under cultivation by, or at the expense of, the founder. (2) If a tenant proves that he has continuously occupied land for thirty years and paid no rent therefore beyond the amount the rates and cesses for the time being chargeable thereon, that he has fulfilled the conditions of clause (a) of sub (3) The words in that clause denoting natural relationship denote also relationship by adoption, including therein the customary appointment of an heir and relationship, by the usage of a religious community Section 3 tenants and extinguishment of corresponding Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, custom or usage for the time being in force on and from the appointed day (a) all rights, title, and interest (including the contingent interest, if any, recognized by any force and including the share in the Shamilat with respect
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- land- revenue thereof and the rates and cesses for the time being chargeable thereon, or xxx
xxx xxx has a right of occupancy in the land so occupied, unless, in the case of belonging to the class specified in the clause (c), the landlord tenant was settled on land previously cleared and brought under cultivation by, or at the expense of, the founder.
If a tenant proves that he has continuously occupied land for thirty years and paid no rent therefore beyond the amount the rates and cesses for the time being chargeable thereon, fulfilled the conditions of clause (a) of sub (3) The words in that clause denoting natural relationship denote also relationship by adoption, including therein the customary appointment of an heir and relationship, by the usage of a religious community Section 3 of the Act, 1952- “Vesting of proprietary rights in occupancy tenants and extinguishment of corresponding Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, custom or usage for the time being in force on and from the appointed day all rights, title, and interest (including the contingent interest, if any, recognized by any law, custom or usage for the time being in force and including the share in the Shamilat with respect
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -43- thereof and the rates and cesses for the time being occupied, unless, in the case of a tenant belonging to the class specified in the clause (c), the landlord proves that the tenant was settled on land previously cleared and brought under cultivation by, If a tenant proves that he has continuously occupied land for thirty years and paid no rent therefore beyond the amount of the land-revenue thereof and the rates and cesses for the time being chargeable thereon, it may be presumed fulfilled the conditions of clause (a) of sub-section (1).
(3) The words in that clause denoting natural relationship denote also relationship by adoption, including therein the customary appointment of an heir and relationship, by the usage of a religious community.” Vesting of proprietary rights in occupancy tenants and extinguishment of corresponding rights of landlords- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, custom or usage for the time being in force on and from the appointed day- all rights, title, and interest (including the contingent interest, if law, custom or usage for the time being in force and including the share in the Shamilat with respect to the thereof and the rates and cesses for the time being a tenant proves that the tenant was settled on land previously cleared and brought under cultivation by, If a tenant proves that he has continuously occupied land for thirty years revenue thereof and it may be presumed (3) The words in that clause denoting natural relationship denote also relationship by adoption, including therein the customary appointment of an Vesting of proprietary rights in occupancy - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, custom all rights, title, and interest (including the contingent interest, if law, custom or usage for the time being in to the JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
land concerned occupancy tenant, shall be extinguished, and such rights, title and interest shal all encumbrances, if any, created by the landlord: Provided that the occupancy tenant shall have the option not to acquire the share in the Shamilat by giving a notice in writing to the Collector within months of the publication of this Act or from the date of his obtaining occupancy rights whichever is later; (b) the landlord shall cease to have any right to collect or receive any rent or any share of the land revenue in respect of such land and his liability to pay land revenue in respect of the land shall also cease; (c) the occupancy tenant shall pay direct to the Government the land revenue accruing due in respect of the land; (d) the occupancy tenant shall be liable to pay, and the landlord co compensation as may be determined under this Act. 94.
94. Under Section 35 of the Act, 1987 a tenant holding for a fixed term under a contract or decree or order of competent authority without notice at the end of that term. As discussed above, relinquished her tenancy by thumb marking on entries of Ex.PW3/1 to PW3/3 with her own volition, free consent coercion. At the time of of suit property as she had already relin
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- land concerned) of the landlord in the land held under him by an occupancy tenant, shall be extinguished, and such rights, title and interest shall be deemed to vest in the occupancy tenant free from all encumbrances, if any, created by the landlord: Provided that the occupancy tenant shall have the option not to acquire the share in the Shamilat by giving a notice in writing to the Collector within months of the publication of this Act or from the date of his obtaining occupancy rights whichever is later; the landlord shall cease to have any right to collect or receive any rent or any share of the land revenue in respect of such land and s liability to pay land revenue in respect of the land shall also cease; the occupancy tenant shall pay direct to the Government the land revenue accruing due in respect of the land; the occupancy tenant shall be liable to pay, and the landlord concerned shall be entitled to receive and be paid, such compensation as may be determined under this Act. Under Section 35 of the Act, 1987 a tenant holding for a fixed term under a contract or decree or order of competent authority without notice at the end of that term. As discussed above, relinquished her tenancy by thumb marking on entries of Ex.PW3/1 to PW3/3 with her own volition, free consent At the time of filing of civil suits, Rumal Kaur of suit property as she had already relinquished possession on 22.10.1981.
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -44- ) of the landlord in the land held under him by an occupancy tenant, shall be extinguished, and such rights, title and l be deemed to vest in the occupancy tenant free from all encumbrances, if any, created by the landlord: Provided that the occupancy tenant shall have the option not to acquire the share in the Shamilat by giving a notice in writing to the Collector within six months of the publication of this Act or from the date of his obtaining the landlord shall cease to have any right to collect or receive any rent or any share of the land revenue in respect of such land and s liability to pay land revenue in respect of the land shall also the occupancy tenant shall pay direct to the Government the land revenue accruing due in respect of the land; the occupancy tenant shall be liable to pay, and the landlord ncerned shall be entitled to receive and be paid, such compensation as may be determined under this Act.” Under Section 35 of the Act, 1987 a tenant holding for a fixed term under a contract or decree or order of competent authority may relinquish his tenancy without notice at the end of that term. As discussed above, Rumal Kaur relinquished her tenancy by thumb marking on entries of Rapat Roznamchas Ex.PW3/1 to PW3/3 with her own volition, free consent, without pressure or Rumal Kaur was not in possession quished possession on 22.10.1981.
Her ) of the landlord in the land held under him by an occupancy tenant, shall be extinguished, and such rights, title and l be deemed to vest in the occupancy tenant free from Provided that the occupancy tenant shall have the option not to acquire the six months of the publication of this Act or from the date of his obtaining the landlord shall cease to have any right to collect or receive any rent or any share of the land revenue in respect of such land and s liability to pay land revenue in respect of the land shall also the occupancy tenant shall pay direct to the Government the land the occupancy tenant shall be liable to pay, and the landlord ncerned shall be entitled to receive and be paid, such Under Section 35 of the Act, 1987 a tenant holding for a fixed term under a tenancy Rumal Kaur Rapat Roznamchas without pressure or was not in possession Her JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
possession as on 1981 was not of descents and the rent being paid by her was more than land revenue acre whereas, the land revenue was rent paid by the plaintiffs learned trial Court
facts and evidence on record in its rightful perspective by holding plaintiffs could not be said to be tenant therefore, no proprietary rights vested in them and they were rightly not declared owner of suit property in any manner
95. In civil suit No.17 of 1987, learned trial Court barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC becau plea of ownership which was available to them in the year 1985 when they filed civil suit No.1080. Order II Rule 2 CPC reads as under:
“ORDER II Rule 2: Suit to include the whole claim (2) Relinquishment of part of claim respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. (3) xxx Explanation: security for its performance and successive claims arising under the
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- possession as on 1981 was not for more than two generations in the main line and the rent being paid by her and previous to that was more than land revenue as the land had been taken acre whereas, the land revenue was assessed @ Rs.9/ rent paid by the plaintiffs till Kharif 1981 was more than the land revenue learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court, rightly
facts and evidence on record in its rightful perspective by holding plaintiffs could not be said to be tenants having right to occupa therefore, no proprietary rights vested in them and they were rightly not declared owner of suit property in any manner. In civil suit No.17 of 1987, learned trial Court rendered findings barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC because the plaintiff has not included the plea of ownership which was available to them in the year 1985 when they filed civil suit No.1080. Order II Rule 2 CPC reads as under:
ORDER II- Frame of suit Rule 2: Suit to include the whole claim.— Relinquishment of part of claim. —Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. Explanation:- For the purpose of this rule an obligation and a collateral security for its performance and successive claims arising under the
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -45- for more than two generations in the main line and previous to that, by her husband had been taken on lease @ Rs.50/- per assessed @ Rs.9/- per acre. Therefore, the more than the land revenue. The and learned First Appellate Court, rightly appreciated that
facts and evidence on record in its rightful perspective by holding that the having right to occupancy and therefore, no proprietary rights vested in them and they were rightly not . rendered findings that the suit is se the plaintiff has not included the plea of ownership which was available to them in the year 1985 when they filed civil suit No.1080. Order II Rule 2 CPC reads as under:- —(1) xxx Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or of this rule an obligation and a collateral security for its performance and successive claims arising under the for more than two generations in the main line by her husband per per acre. Therefore, the he appreciated that that the ncy and therefore, no proprietary rights vested in them and they were rightly not that the suit is se the plaintiff has not included the plea of ownership which was available to them in the year 1985 when they Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or of this rule an obligation and a collateral security for its performance and successive claims arising under the JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
same obligation shall be deemed re action.”
96. The subject matter of killa No.23 (4- Nos.
3(4-17), 9(8 were for declaration that the change of cultivation in respect of the name of defendant is illegal and invalid and that the plaintiff is still tenant with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering in her possession 1987 is land measuring 103 suit No.1080/1985 and civil suit No.17/1987 was filed for declaration that the plaintiff Rumal Kaur and her husband were in continuous cultivating possession of suit propert with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in her possession 1080/1985, the plaintiff Rumal Kaur the property which is subject matter of civil suit No.17/1987 from suing regarding this occupancy tenant Rumal Kaur at the time of filing of civil suit No. claimed and the plaintiff from raising this issue by way of filing subsequent learned trial Court and subsequent civil suit No.17 is barred by principle of Order II Rule 2 CPC. RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- same obligation shall be deemed respectively to
The subject matter of civil suit No.1080/1985, -4), Rect. No.8 killa Nos. 21 (4 17), 9(8-8), total area 27 kanal 7 marla, and the claim of the plaintiffs were for declaration that the change of cultivation in respect of the name of defendant is illegal and invalid and that the plaintiff is still tenant with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering in her possession, whereas the subject matter of civil suit No.17 1987 is land measuring 103 kanal 9 marla which includes suit property of civil suit No.1080/1985 and civil suit No.17/1987 was filed for declaration that the plaintiff Rumal Kaur and her husband were in continuous cultivating possession of suit property and that she be declared as owner in possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in her possession. At the time of filing of civil suit No. 1080/1985, the plaintiff Rumal Kaur did not sue in r the property which is subject matter of civil suit No.17/1987 from suing regarding this property.
The right to claim ownership occupancy tenant over whole suit property at the time of filing of civil suit No. and the plaintiff Rumal Kaur and her successor from raising this issue by way of filing subsequent learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court correctly held that subsequent civil suit No.17 is barred by principle of Order II Rule 2 CPC. , RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -46- pectively to constitute but cause of was the land bearing Rect. No.6 4), Rect. No.8 killa Nos. 21 (4-8), 22 (5-18), Rect. No.9 killa 8), total area 27 kanal 7 marla, and the claim of the plaintiffs were for declaration that the change of cultivation in respect of the suit land in the name of defendant is illegal and invalid and that the plaintiff is still tenant with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant from whereas the subject matter of civil suit No.17 of which includes suit property of civil suit No.1080/1985 and civil suit No.17/1987 was filed for declaration that the plaintiff Rumal Kaur and her husband were in continuous cultivating y and that she be declared as owner in possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants . At the time of filing of civil suit No. sue in respect of her claim over the property which is subject matter of civil suit No.17/1987, she is barred right to claim ownership by way of was available to the plaintiff; at the time of filing of civil suit No.1080/1985 but it is not so Rumal Kaur and her successor-in-interest are barred from raising this issue by way of filing subsequent suit No.17 of 1987. The learned First Appellate Court correctly held that subsequent civil suit No.17 is barred by principle of Order II Rule 2 CPC. constitute but cause of the land bearing Rect. No.6 18), Rect.
No.9 killa 8), total area 27 kanal 7 marla, and the claim of the plaintiffs the suit land in the name of defendant is illegal and invalid and that the plaintiff is still tenant with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant from of which includes suit property of civil suit No.1080/1985 and civil suit No.17/1987 was filed for declaration that the plaintiff Rumal Kaur and her husband were in continuous cultivating y and that she be declared as owner in possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants . At the time of filing of civil suit No. her claim over barred by way of ; it is not so are barred No.17 of 1987. The learned First Appellate Court correctly held that JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP
97. In view of the detailed discussion hereinabove, Court and learned First Appellate Court in b learned Courts below rightly adjudicated against the appellants Rapat Roznamchas relinquished her possession over suit property on failed to prove that her thumb impressions were obtained by deceit misrepresentation Ex. PW-9/E allegedly signed by disbelieved by the learned trial Court Court find the decision of learned Courts below in both the civil appeals is cogent, reasoned evidence on record reasoned judgments rendered by the learned Appellate Courts in both the appeals do not call for any interference. 98. In view of the above discussion herein, no merit is found in both the appeals the same are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, COCP dismissed sans any merit. of FIR No.83 dated 08.05.2010,
99. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 29.05.2026 Jyoti-IV
RSA-2115-2006 (O&M), RSA COCP-885-2010 and CRM-M- In view of the detailed discussion hereinabove, Court and learned First Appellate Court in both the appeals are upheld. The learned Courts below rightly adjudicated against the appellants Rapat Roznamchas Ex.DW3/1 to Ex.DW3/3 that relinquished her possession over suit property on prove that her thumb impressions were obtained by deceit misrepresentation or by concealment of facts.
allegedly signed by Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant disbelieved by the learned trial Courts and learned First Appellate Court Court find the decision of learned Courts below in both the civil appeals is , reasoned and based on correct appreciation of oral and documentary on record and law in its rightful prospect. Therefore, the reasoned judgments rendered by the learned Appellate Courts in both the appeals do not call for any interference. In view of the above discussion herein, no merit is found in both the appeals the same are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, COCP dismissed sans any merit. Resultantly, CRM-M No. 83 dated 08.05.2010, is allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No
, RSA-973-2010 (O&M), -32841-2010 -47- In view of the detailed discussion hereinabove, the findings of the learned trial oth the appeals are upheld. The learned Courts below rightly adjudicated against the appellants, on the basis of DW3/3 that Rumal Kaur had relinquished her possession over suit property on 22.10.1981 and that she prove that her thumb impressions were obtained by deceit, fraud, . The receipts Ex. PW-9/B and Ghan Shyam Dass, defendant were rightly earned First Appellate Court. This Court find the decision of learned Courts below in both the civil appeals is correct appreciation of oral and documentary and law in its rightful prospect. Therefore, the well reasoned judgments rendered by the learned Appellate Courts in both the In view of the above discussion herein, no merit is found in both the appeals the same are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, COCP No.885 of 2010 also M No.32841 of 2010 for quashing Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (RAMESH KUMARI) JUDGE Yes/No. Yes/No the findings of the learned trial oth the appeals are upheld.
The on the basis of had she , fraud, and were rightly This Court find the decision of learned Courts below in both the civil appeals is correct appreciation of oral and documentary well reasoned judgments rendered by the learned Appellate Courts in both the In view of the above discussion herein, no merit is found in both the appeals also for quashing ) JYOTI 2026.05.31 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document