KUNDAN LAL & ANR. Vs. KAMRUDDIN & ANR.
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 6671 of 2008, Judgment Date: Dec 01, 2016
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6671 OF 2008
KUNDAN LAL & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
KAMRUDDIN & ANR. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
R. BANUMATHI J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of the Judgment dated 16.03.2007 passed by the
High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 1412 of 2002
confirming the Judgment of the courts below wherein the appellants were
directed to hand-over the possession of the suit property in question.
3. Respondent/plaintiff Kamruddin filed the suit for possession of the suit
property. Case of respondent/plaintiffs was that he became a tenant under
respondent no. 2/Punjab Wakf Board @ Rs. 50/- per month since 01.04.1990
over the suit property measuring 120 square yard in Khasra No. 270 more
fully described in blue and red colour in the site plan attached with the
plaint. Further, case of first respondent/plaintiff is that in the month of
November 1990, when his family had shifted to village Sikarpur in the wake
of riots in the Ramjanam Bhumi & Babri Masjid and he was out of station on
his truck, taking advantage of his absence the appellants have taken
illegal possession of the suit property and hence first
respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for vacant possession.
4. The appellants/defendant nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit claiming that
one Shivlal was in possession of the suit property as the said Shivlal had
the property on lease from Punjab Wakf Board and also raised construction
on the suit property. The appellant nos. 1 and 2 have taken possession of
the suit property from said Shivlal under an agreement dated 16.05.1990.
The second respondent/Punjab Wakf Board also accepted the appellants as its
tenants vide allotment order dated 01.12.1990 and started receiving rent
from them. Thus, according to the appellants they became tenants of the
suit property under Punjab Wakf Board @ Rs. 100/- per month. Punjab Wakf
Board also filed a separate written statement on the same lines.
5. On the above pleadings, issues were framed by the Trial Court and the
Trial Court held issue no. 1 in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff
holding that the suit property was allotted to him as tenant by the Punjab
Wakf Board since 01.04.1990 on monthly rent @ Rs. 50/-. The Trial Court
further held that the suit property was never allotted to Shivlal from whom
allegedly the appellants had taken possession and that the appellants had
failed to establish their possession over the suit property as the tenant.
On those findings, plaintiff's suit for the first respondent for possession
was decreed.
6. On appeal, the First Appellate Court/Additional District Judge, Rewari
affirmed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal preferred
by the appellants. On further appeal, the High Court dismissed the same by
the impugned judgment.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable
length. The learned counsel for the appellants placed strong reliance upon
the agreement between the appellant and Shivlal dated 16.05.1990 and the
allotment order by the Punjab Wakf Board in favour of the appellant to
contend that the appellants are the tenants of Khasra No. 270 (Old
Khasra No. 867). It was submitted that Shivlal had handed over the
possession of the suit property, measuring 19½ sq. yards forming part of
Khasra No. 270 and the same was also approved by the Punjab Wakf Board and
the appellants had been paying the rent while so courts below were not
right in holding that the appellants are in illegal occupation of the suit
property.
8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff
submitted that Shivlal was nor given any tenancy in Khasra No. 270 and he
could not have entered into any agreement in respect of Khasra No. 270 and
the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are based on evidence
and the same do not warrant any interference.
9. On perusal of Ex. PW- 2/1, the allotment order, it is brought in
evidence that the first respondent/plaintiff was allotted area measuring
126 square yards being Khasra No. 270
with effect from 01.04.1990. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court noted that the site plan on the back of the said allotment order
shows that the suit property is a part of the allotted area measuring 126
square yards. As seen from the judgments of the Courts below, the first
respondent has produced receipts regarding payment of rent to appellant no.
3,regarding Khasra No. 270 which are Ex. PW-2/2 to Ex. PW-10 and PW-
5/1 to Ex. PW-5/3 and Ex. PW-6/1 to Ex. PW-6/3. The contesting defendants
have also placed on record receipts Ex. DW-3/1, and Ex. DW-5/1 to Ex. DW-
5/4; Courts below held that Mark A clearly shows that the same related to
property bearing Khasra No. 267 and in that way the same can not be
connected to the suit land. Based on oral and documentary evidence, the
courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the appellant
is in possession and allotted different survey number in Khasra No. 267 and
he has no right to claim the suit property.
10. In view of the above, the Civil Appeal stands dismissed.
11. However, as prayed for by the learned counsel for the appellants, six
months' time is granted to vacate the suit premises, subject to filing
usual undertaking in the Registry of this Court within four weeks from
today, stating that the appellant shall not create any third party rights,
will clear all the rent/dues/occupational charges to the Wakf Board in the
meanwhile and will peacefully vacate the suit premises concerned within the
stipulated time frame positively.
….....................J.
(R.K. AGRAWAL)
….....................J
(R. BANUMATHI)
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 01, 2016
For the Latest Updates
Join Now