Full Judgment
K.C. Puri, J.
Oral:
C.M NO. 1782-C OF 2011
There is delay of 58 days in refiling the appeal. The same stands condoned on the grounds mentioned therein.
C.M NO. 1783-C OF 2011
The application stands allowed and the deficiency in court fee has been made good.
MAIN CASE
The plaintiffs-appellants have directed the present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.05.2010 passed by Shri Dilbagh Singh Johal, Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Patiala, vide which appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment dated 06.10.2009 passed by Ms. Jagdeep Kaur Virk, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajpura, was dismissed.
Briefly stated, the plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of possession of agricultural land measuring 7 bighas 14 biswas as detailed in head note of the plaint.
The case of plaintiffs is that they are in cultivating possession of the suit land as tenants since 1965. Father of the plaintiffs died in the year 1980. The plaintiffs have been cultivating the land jointly with his father as tenants. The defendants got an order of correction of khasra girdawari and forged impugned order dated 01.08.2001 passed by A.C II Grade, Ghanaur. The defendants without any right and undue advantage of absence of plaintiffs forcibly plough the suit land and sown chari crop therein and in this manner, forcibly dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land without any legal right. The rights of plaintiffs have been protected under Sections 7 and 7-A of the Pepsu Tenancy Act and they are entitled to restoration of possession under Section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act.
On put to notice, defendants appeared and filed written statement contesting the claim of plaintiffs. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs have no concern with the suit property.
The suit land is owned and possessed by defendants. The suit land has been purchased by the defendants from one Kaushalya Devi widow of Bhushan, Prem Wati widow of Ajit Singh and Baldev Singh son of Diwan Chand through registered sale deed dated 18.11.1994 and possession of the suit land is already with the defendants before execution of sale deed in their favour.
The plaintiffs are in habit of filing false and frivolous suits. He also filed a suit which was dismissed on 05.05.2001 by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs against that judgment is still pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Patiala. The possession of plaintiffs has not even admitted by the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura. An application for correction of khasra girdawari has also been accepted against the plaintiffs vide order dated 01.08.2001 passed by AC II Grade, Ghanaur. The other averments were denied and prayed for dismissal of the suit. The plaintiffs filed replication denying the contents of written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the plaint. From the pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :-
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession as prayed for OPP
2. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable? OPP
3. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit OPP
4. Relief.
In order to prove their case, plaintiffs examined Pala Ram as PW-1, Ran Singh as PW-2 and plaintiff Prem Singh himself stepped into the witness box as PW-3.
On the other hand, defendant Sadha Ram himself stepped into the witness box as DW-1 and closed the evidence.
The learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence, returned the findings on Issue No.1 against the plaintiffs, whereas Issues No.2 and 3 were decided against the defendants and consequently, the suit of plaintiffs was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 06.10.2009 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajpura.
Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment and decree dated 06.10.2009 passed by Ms. Jagdeep Kaur Virk, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajpura, the plaintiffs preferred first appeal which was dismissed vide judgment dated 19.05.2010 passed by Shri Dilbagh Singh Johal, Additional District Judge, Patiala.
Still feeling dissatisfied with both the above said judgments and decrees, the plaintiffs have preferred the present regular second appeal.
The appellants in para no. 4 of the grounds of appeal have mentioned that following substantial questions of law have arisen in the present appeal :-
i) Whether the appellants who are in possession of the suit land since 1965 through their predecessors in interest can be dispossessed forcibly and illegally ?
ii) Whether the appellants are entitled to recovery of possession under Section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act ?
iii) Whether the appellants can be dispossessed without following the procedure laid under the Punjab Tenancy Act ?
iv) Whether the issue regarding tenancy of appellants was essential to be framed for proper adjudication of the suit ?
v) Whether the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below is against evidence and law on record ?
Admittedly previously the plaintiffs filed suit for declaration claiming adverse possession and their suit was dismissed but their claim regarding adverse possession was dismissed. Now the plaintiffs have taken a stand that they have been in possession of the suit property as tenant and they have been wrongly dispossessed, but there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below against the plaintiffs regarding claim of tenancy.
So, I have no hesitation in holding that no substantial question of law has arisen in the present case. The questions of law mentioned above by the appellants does not exist at all. It is a settled law that this Court cannot interfere in case no substantial question of law has arisen in the appeal.
Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.