Ghanshyam vs Lala Ram And Ors

-1-
201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-2809-2001 (O&M)
Decided on : 11.11.2026
GHANSHYAM
...Appellant
Versus
LALA RAM AND ORS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL
Present: Mr. R. S. Sangwan, Advocate
for appellant No.1.
Mr. K. S. Godara, Advocate
for the applicant (CM-1764-C-2025).
Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Tarun Yadav, Advocate
for respondents.

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)
Present regular second appeal has been preferred by appellant-
plaintiff being aggrieved by impugned judgment and decree dated
07.11.2000 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul whereby
appeal preferred by respondent-defendant-Lala Ram against judgment and
decree dated 08.04.1996 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Mahendergarh was accepted and judgment and decree dated
08.04.1996 whereby suit for permanent injunction was decreed, was set
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-2809-2001 (O&M) -2-
aside.
2. The simple case of appellant-plaintiff was that they are co-
owners of suit property. They claimed that from 1982 to 1987, suit property
was let out to one Ratipal Singh son of Narain Singh, however, said Ratipal
had relinquished his interest in suit property and it was let out to plaintiff
No.5(ii) Daya Ram.
3. It was also claimed that plaintiffs-Kishan Chand etc. had also
relinquished their rights in favour of Ghanshyam-appellant-plaintiff No.5(i)
vide judgment and decree dated 15.02.1993 passed in Civil Suit No.55 titled
as Kishan Chand etc. Vs. Ghanshayam . Appellant-plaintiff No.5(i) had
also sold part of suit land to plaintiff No.5(ii)-Daya Ram and to one Surat
Singh in equal share vide registered sale deed No.17 dated 06.04.1993. After
the sale deed plaintiff No.5(ii) Daya Ram came in possession over a 4/15
part of the suit land as joint owner and over the remaining part as tenant,
meaning that he was in possession of the entire suit land. It was however,
claimed that in revenue record respondent-defendant-Lala Ram was
recorded in possession of suit land since Rabi 1984. On the basis of said
wrong entries, respondents-defendants wanted to dispossess plaintiff
No.5(ii)-Daya Ram forcefully and therefore, appellant-plaintiff had preferred
suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain respondent-defendant from
interfering in their possession over the suit land.
4. Respondent-defendant had opposed the suit and claimed that it
is he who is in possession of suit land being tenant and the case setup by
appellant-plaintiff is false and fabricated. Accordingly, dismissal of suit was
prayed for.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-2809-2001 (O&M) -3-
framed:-
1. Whether the suit property is owned and possessed by the
plaintiffs? OPP
2. Whether the defendant is not entitled to interrupt and interfere
into the possession of the plaintiffs on the grounds as alleged?
OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file this suit?
OPD.
4. Whether the suit is time bar? OPD.
5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD.
6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing this suit by their
own act and conduct? OPD.
7. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed u/s 10 CPC on the
grounds as alleged? OPD.
8. Whether the defendant property is entitled to special costs u/s
35-A CPC? OPD.
9. Relief.
6. Learned Court of First Instance had concluded that possession
of respondent-defendant-Lala Ram is not proved over the suit property as the
entries in khasra girdawries showing his possession since Rabi 1984 were
got changed without any notice to the appellant-plaintiff. It had also taken in
consideration failure of respondent-defendant to show payment of rent and
also admission made by respondent-defendant before Girdawar recorded
vide Ex.P-26 wherein respondent-defendant had allegedly admitted
possession of plaintiff No.5(ii)-Daya Ram. On the basis of these findings,
learned Court of First Instance had decided issue No.1 in favour of
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-2809-2001 (O&M) -4-
appellant-plaintiff. Issue No.2 was decided against respondent-defendant.
Issue Nos.3 to 8 were not pressed and the suit was decreed, accordingly.
7. Learned First Appellate Court, however, had reversed the
findings of learned Court of First Instance by taking in consideration fact
that the application made by plaintiff No.5(ii)-Daya Ram for correction of
khasra girdawari entries had attained finality upto Financial Commissioner,
Haryana and the khasra girdawari entries in favour of respondent-defendant
were not disturbed. It had also taken note of fact that PW-9 Daya Ram had
appeared in support of appellant-plaintiff’s case wherein he admitted that a
compromise was effected between respondent-defendant-Lala Ram and him
to cultivate land to the extent of half share each, however, said compromise
or agreement could not be put in place/executed.
8. Learned Appellate Court had also taken in consideration that
even Ex.P-26, the statement recorded by the Girdawar, had not found favour
with the revenue authorities and the entries in favour of respondent-
defendant-Lala Ram continued despite claim of plaintiff No.5(ii)-Daya Ram
that he is the owner and in possession of suit property.
9. On re-consideration of pleadings, evidence as well as findings
of learned Courts below, I find that the findings recorded by learned First
Appellate Court are based upon correct appreciation of evidence and learned
First Appellate Court has rightly concluded that suit property was under the
tenancy of respondent-defendant-Lala Ram and since appellant-plaintiff
were not in possession, therefore, they were not entitled to permanent
injunction and accordingly, appeal of respondent-defendant-Lala Ram was
accepted and suit of appellant-plaintiff was dismissed.
10. Revenue record shows that the suit property was under tenancy
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-2809-2001 (O&M) -5-
of Angna . The entries in jamabandies and khasra girdawries continued in
name of Angna till Rabi 1984, when respondent-defendant-Lala Ram was
shown to be tenant in the revenue records. It is also not in dispute that
Angna had died in year 1960 itself. A close reading of pleadings by
appellant-plaintiff in fact goes to show that suit property was not under self-
cultivation of owners at any time prior to year 1960 or after death of Anga
and even in year 1984.
11. Rather the pleadings as well as evidence of appellant-plaintiff is
that from 1982 to 1987, it was Ratipal who was inducted as tenant and
thereafter it was replaced by plaintiff No.5(ii)-Daya Ram son of Sardara
Singh. However, strangely no entries in any of the revenue records showing
possession of Ratipal from 1982-1987 has been produced by appellant-
plaintiff nor any entry has been placed on record to show that plaintiff
No.5(ii)-Daya Ram was in possession.
12. From the facts and circumstances of present case, it is clearly
made out that appellant-plaintiff has devised a very novel method to
dispossess tenant by claiming themselves to be in possession through a
fictitious tenant namely plaintiff No.5(ii)-Daya Ram who himself has
claimed to be co-sharer in suit land having been purchased from appellant-
plaintiff No.5(i)-Ghanshyam Dass son of Ram Niwas. Except for oral
assertions and self-serving receipt issued by none else but by plaintiff
No.5(ii)-Daya Ram, there is no evidence showing possession of plaintiff
No.5(ii)-Daya Ram or Ratipal from 1982 till 1992 when the suit was filed
after 10 years. Despite repeated tenancy by different tenants over suit land
no objection was taken by either appellant-plaintiff or tenants regarding
revenue entries which were in favour of respondent-defendant-Lala Ram.
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-2809-2001 (O&M) -6-
The dispute was raised only in year 1992 when correction of khasra
Girdawari for the first time was sought by plaintiff No.5(ii)-Daya Ram and
suit was filed in year 1992 which goes to show that the tenancy in favour of
plaintiff No.5(ii)-Daya Ram was created only to defeat rights of respondent-
defendant-Lala Ram. Similarly, learned Court of First Instance had rightly
rejected Ex.P-26 as same was never relied upon by any of the revenue
authorities as well as for the reasons that the compromise as stated by PW-9
Daya Ram was never acted upon by the parties.
13. Similarly, the issue whether no notice was issued to appellant-
plaintiff before change of khasra girdawries also is of insignificance as
khasra girdawries were not challenged for about 09 years by the appellant-
plaintiff and in fact appellant-plaintiff had never cared to get the khasra
girdawries recored in their name or in the name of tenants at any time. The
conclusion drawn by learned First Appellate Court is a probable conclusion
which has arisen from correct appreciation of pleadings and evidence led by
the parties.
14. Faced with above conclusion, learned counsel for the appellant-
plaintiff has argued that no rent was ever paid to the land owners and unless
it is proved that rent was being paid, the finding of tenancy cannot be
justified. However, in an oral tenancy where tenancy itself is being rejected
by appellant-plaintiff, it is revenue entries which prevail over denial. In
revenue entries i.e. khasra girdwari from year 1984 onwards as well as
jamabandi, the land was shown under tenancy of respondent-defendant on
half batai. In case, appellant-plaintiff have not received rent, they could get it
recovered by initiating appropriate legal remedy available to them. On one
hand, they are denying the tenancy, on the other hand, they are shifting
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-2809-2001 (O&M) -7-
burden on the respondent-defendant who had discharged the same by
showing entries in revenue record where rent has been mentioned equivalent
to half of produce. Therefore, present is not a case where no rent was fixed
between the parties.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff had also placed
reliance upon three spot inspection reports wherein plaintiff No.5(ii)-Daya
Ram was held to be in possession. However, report of Local Commissioner
or SDM etc. cannot be taken to conclude possession of one party. Possession
of the parties has to be proved by documents as well as evidence on record.
Similarly, it is not the job of Local Commissioner or Revenue Authorities to
decide possession by making spot or local inspection. It is the job of Courts
to decide as to who is in possession by taking entire evidence in
consideration. Strangely, if Daya Ram alone was in possession, why other
co-sharers have sought injunction against defendant when they themselves
were not in possession. In view of above discussion, no question of law
arises. The findings of fact recorded by learned Appellate Court cannot be
held erroneous or perverse, accordingly are upheld. Present appeal is without
any merit. Hence, dismissed.
16. Application on behalf of plaintiff No.5(ii)-Daya Ram to get
himself impleaded as appellant No.2 on the ground that he has already
purchased the land from appellant-plaintiff No.5(i)-Ghanshyam Dass is not
required to be adjudicated, as rights of Daya Ram would be same as were of
appellant-Ghanshyam Dass on purchase of suit property. Same is
accordingly, disposed of as infructuous.
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-2809-2001 (O&M) -8-
17. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly.
(PARMOD GOYAL)
11.11.2026 JUDGE
Ravinder
Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document