P&H HC Upholds Lala Ram’s Tenancy, Rejects Owners’ Injunction Bid After They Produce No Revenue Entries for Alleged Replacement Tenants

In brief

The question

Whether the plaintiffs proved possession of the suit land sufficient to obtain a permanent injunction

The court held

The Court held that the plaintiffs had not proved possession and were not entitled to a permanent injunction.

It also directed

Finding no question of law and no basis to disturb the First Appellate Court’s factual findings, it dismissed the regular second appeal and disposed of Daya Ram’s impleadment application as infructuous.

01Facts

The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction, claiming that they owned the suit land and that Daya Ram was in possession, partly as a co-owner and partly as a tenant.

¶ 2–4

They alleged that Lala Ram was relying on incorrect revenue entries to interfere with that possession.

¶ 2–4

The trial court decreed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed, relying on revenue entries showing Lala Ram as tenant and the absence of reliable evidence that the plaintiffs or their alleged tenants had possessed the land.

¶ 6–8

Ghanshyam appealed by regular second appeal.

¶ 1

02Issues

i.Whether the plaintiffs proved possession of the suit land sufficient to obtain a permanent injunction

¶ 5–6, 9

ii.Whether the First Appellate Court’s findings on possession disclosed an error warranting interference in a regular second appeal

¶ 9, 15

03Law Applied

A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction on the basis of possession must establish that possession; where possession is disputed, the court assesses the entire record, including revenue entries and other evidence.

¶ 14–15

Revenue entries may support a finding of tenancy and possession, while a spot-inspection report or a Local Commissioner’s report does not, by itself, determine possession.

¶ 14–15

In a regular second appeal, a finding of fact based on a correct appreciation of the evidence is not to be disturbed absent an erroneous or perverse finding or a question of law.

¶ 15

The judgment identifies no statute or precedent as the basis for these propositions.

¶ 14–15

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 10

04Reasoning

The revenue records showed Lala Ram as tenant from Rabi 1984, while the plaintiffs produced no revenue entries evidencing possession by Ratipal or Daya Ram. The Court also noted the delay in challenging the entries, the lack of proof that the alleged tenancy arrangements had been acted upon, and the First Appellate Court’s rejection of the alleged compromise and Ex.P-26.

¶ 10–13

The plaintiffs’ reliance on non-payment of rent did not displace the revenue evidence, and the inspection reports could not independently establish possession.

¶ 14–15

The First Appellate Court’s conclusion was therefore a probable finding on the evidence, not one warranting interference in second appeal.

¶ 15