Punjab & Haryana HC: Concurrent Findings on Possession Final, Regular Second Appeal Fails

Case Name: Anita Devi v. Mai Ram & Others
Date of Judgment: January 9, 2020
Citation: RSA-3576-2019
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Monga

Held: The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal at the threshold, holding that no substantial question of law arose as required under Section 100 CPC. Both the trial court and the first appellate court had concurrently found that the plaintiffs were in settled possession of the land and thus entitled to protection from forcible dispossession. While the plaintiffs failed to establish ownership by occupancy rights under the Punjab Occupancy Tenancy (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953, their continuous possession was proved through revenue records. The Court reiterated that a person in settled possession cannot be ousted except by due process of law.

Summary: The plaintiffs sought declaration of ownership over 36 kanals 4 marlas of land and an injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or interfering with their possession. The trial court rejected their claim of ownership for lack of proof of occupancy tenancy but granted permanent injunction on the basis of established possession. The first appellate court upheld the decree, dismissing the appellant’s plea for additional evidence on correction of revenue records as irrelevant. In second appeal, Anita Devi contended that the plaintiffs never had lawful possession. However, the High Court noted that the concurrent findings of fact based on jamabandi and khasra girdawari entries clearly showed possession of the plaintiffs and their forefathers since 1965, and that such findings could not be interfered with in RSA absent perversity or illegality.

Decision: Appeal dismissed in limine. Judgments of the courts below upheld. Appellant given liberty to seek eviction of plaintiffs by taking recourse to due process of law.