Page 1

1

            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

Page 2

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,

Page 3

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.

Page 4

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

Page 5

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