Kundan Lal vs Kamruddin

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 Signature Not Verified described in blue and red colour in the site plan Digitally signed by SONALI SAUND

attached Date: 2016.12.16 10:47:45 IST Reason: 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 2

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, 3

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. 4

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 5

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 6

ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.10 SECTION IV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 6671/2008

KUNDAN LAL & ANR. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

KAMRUDDIN & ANR. Respondent(s) (with office report)

Date : 01/12/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

For Appellant(s) Mr. Suresh C. Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Birendra Kumar Mishra, Adv.

Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv.

Ms. Poonam Atey, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv.

Mr. Naresh Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Abinash Kumar Mishra,Adv.

Mrs. B. Sunita Rao,Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

The Civil Appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed

reportable judgment.

(SONALI SAUND) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) SR.P.A COURT MASTER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)