JUDGMENT

K. C. PURI, J. – Since RSA Nos.2149 of 1986,1913 of 1985, 17 of 1986, 995 of 1986, 996 of 1986 and 1590 of 1986 are also in respect of decree dated 9.2.1965 and the same questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals, as such all these appeals shall be disposed of by this judgment. Facts have, however, been taken from RSA No.2149 of 1986.

2. The appellants are aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 13.6.1986 passed by the then District Judge, Kurukshetra whereby he dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.1985 passed by the then Sub Judge, Kaithal.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the plaintiffs is that they were owners of suit land and the defendants were in possession of the suit land against will and without their consent. They requested the defendants to hand over possession of the suit land to them but they did not agree to do so.

4. The defendants in the written statement controverted the averments made in the plaint. The defendants also raised some preliminary objections.

5. The plaintiffs filed replication in which they reiterated their pleadings.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court;-

i).  Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit property? OPP.

ii). Whether the defendants have become the owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession as alleged? OPP.

3.     Whether the Civil Court decree mentioned in para No.3 of the written statement is null and void and does not affect the right of the plaintiffs as alleged? OPD.

4.     Relief.

7. The learned trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Consequently, vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.1985 the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed and the defendants were directed to hand over the possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs within two months from the date of the judgment.

8. The defendants did not feel satisfied with the said judgment and decree and they preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra vide impugned judgment and decree dated 13.6.1986.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.6.1986 passed by the then District Judge, Kurukshetra, the appellants have filed the instant appeal.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

11. The appellants were asked to formulate the questions of law as envisaged under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellants formulated number of questions of law but to sum up, those questions of law, only the following questions of law are formulated:-

1.     Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is within limitation, being not filed within 12 years from the date of passing of Civil Court decree dated 9.2.1965?

2.     Whether in view of statutory provisions of Section 122 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, the suit is within limitation from the date of sanctioning partition?

3.     Whether the Courts below were justified in law to hold the judgment and decree dated 9.2.1965 as valid?

4.     Whether the Courts below have mis-interpreted and mis-read the evidence regarding the plea of adverse possession raised by the appellants.

5.     Whether the protection of Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 was available to the appellants?

12. The first and fore-most question is whether the Courts below have rightly held the decree dated 9.2.1965 as valid.

13. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned counsel or the appellants has submitted that decree dated 9.2.1965 has been passed on the basis of statement by the Sarpanch of the village in a collusive manner. So, the decree passed on the basis of statement made by the Sarpanch cannot be held to be valid.

14. I have considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission.

15. Dina Nath, Jagan Nath and others filed suit for possession against Jit Singh, Khazan Singh etc. on the basis of decree dated 9.2.1965. That suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 26.2.1981 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Kaithal but the appeal was accepted by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide judgment and decree dated 27.2.1982 and the suit of plaintiffs Dina Nath and another was decreed holding the said decree as valid. The High Court in RSA No.517 of 1982 up-held the said judgment. The said decree was maintained by the Hon'ble Apex Court. No doubt, the present appellants were not parties in that suit but since decree dated 9.2.1965 was subject matter of that suit and the plaintiffs in that case also filed a suit for recovery on the basis of that decree and partition. Decree for possession was maintained by the Hon'ble Apex Court. On that count, the above-said judgments are relevant. Otherwise also, from the Jamabandies, it is revealed that 3/4th of the land was recorded as ownership of Jumla Mushtarka Malkan and decree regarding that land only has been passed. It was the Gram Panchayat who could have challenged the said decree but it was conceded that the said decree dated 9.2.1965 has not been set aside by any competent Court so far. So, point No.1 formulated above stands determined against the appellants.

16. Mr. Aggarwal has further submitted that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the facts regarding adverse possession. The plaintiffs themselves have pleaded in the plaint that the defendants are in possession without their consent. Decree was passed in the year 1965 and the present suit has been filed in the year 1982 i.e. after the period of more than 17 years. The possession of the plaintiffs over suit property being in a hostile manner to the knowledge of true owner has ripened into ownership by way of adverse possession. The finding of learned trial Court that since the land was given on lease to the defendants in the year 1955 for 20 years and after the expiry of period of lease in the year 1975, the suit is within limitation. The plaintiffs cannot have benefit of the said lease deed.

17. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission. The defendant appellant DW1 in his cross-examination has admitted the fact that suit land was in possession of the defendants as lessees since 1955 for a period of 20 years i.e. upto 1975. So, in these circumstances, both the Courts below have rightly held that the suit is within limitation from 1975. It has also been rightly held that the defendants have not become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession. The defendants were in possession till 1975 as lessees. They have not admitted the ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit land and have set up a case of adverse possession. Once the period of tenancy of a tenant has expired and that the tenant sets up a case of ownership on the ground of adverse possession, that tenancy terminates and the defendants become trespassers on the suit property .So, in these circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs.

18. The learned counsel for the appellants could not draw my pointed attention to any pleading or evidence which has been mis-interpreted or mis-read by both the Courts below.

19. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that since possession has not been given under Section 122 of the Land Revenue Act to the plaintiffs after the mutation in the year 1969 in favour of the plaintiffs, as such the plaintiffs are not entitled to possession.

20. I have considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission. Previously, the Gram Panchayat has leased out the property in favour of defendants for a period of 20 years. The plaintiffs after passing of decree dated 9.2.1965 could not get possession till the expiry of period of lease in favour of the defendants. So, provisions of Section 122 of the Land Revenue Act are not attracted to the facts of the present case.

21. One another strong circumstance which militates against the case of the appellants is that decree for possession binds Dina Nath and Jagan Nath against Jeet Singh etc. on the basis of decree dated 9.2.1965 which has been up-held by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

22. So far as the submission to the effect that the plaintiffs can only be evicted by passing a decree by the Revenue Court and that their rights are protected under Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 is concerned, that submission is also without any substance. Their tenancy has been determined by taking the plea of adverse possession. Otherwise also, after the expiry of period of lease of 20 years, in the year 1975, the appellants have got no legal right to remain in possession. The appellants being trespassers over the suit land, decree for possession has rightly been passed in favour of the plaintiffs. Authorities reported as Mandar Thakar Ji Versus Gurbax Singh, 1994(3) Recent Revenue Reports 103, Partap Kaur Versus Ismail Mohd., 2007(3) Recent Civil Reports 36, Bondar Singh and Ors., Versus Nihal Singh, 2003(2) Recent Civil Reports 222 and Des Raj &Ors. Versus Bhagat Ram (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors.,2007(2) Recent Civil Reports 581 are distinguishable to the facts of the present case as in none of those cases, it was held that the party in possession of the property was in permissive possession as tenants. The Hon'ble Apex Court in (2) Apex Court Journal 474 has held that after the expiry of period of lease, permissive possession cannot be said to be valid for adverse possession.

23. In view of the above discussion, all the points formulated above stand determined against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. Consequently, the appeals are without any merit and the same stand dismissed with costs.

24. Decree sheets be prepared and the files of both the Courts below be returned after due compliance.

25. Copies of judgments be placed on the connected appeals.

Appeals dismissed.

********